Children’s Perceptions of Violence: The Nature, Extent, and Impact of their Experiences

While far less children have been exposed to sexual violence, the ones who have experienced this form of violence reported its affect to be of higher impact. Although twice the number again reported experiencing the impact of physical violence, only a quarter of those children rated their experiences at a ‘4’ or ‘5’ on the rating scale. Investigation of the measure of central tendency indicates that the sample mean more accurately reflects the impact on children who have been abused and shows that less children on average rated the impact of physical and emotional violence as high or very high, compared to the children who experienced sexual violence.

Independent sample t-tests were performed to compare the means for physical, sexual and emotional violence. The t-test comparing means of the impact of physical violence and the impact of emotional violence resulted in a significant difference,
t _(1,459) = 5.72, p < .001, in that emotional violence had more impact (M = 2.8,
SD = 1.4) than physical violence (M = 2.6, SD = 1.4), d = .14. This is an important finding. However, the t-test comparing means of the impact of emotional violence and the impact of sexual violence resulted in a significant difference, t ₍₁₇₅₎ = 7.82, p < .001, in that sexual violence has more impact (M = 3.7, SD = 1.5) than emotional violence (M = 2.8, SD = 1.4), d = .62. In addition, the t-test comparing means of the impact of physical violence and the impact of sexual violence resulted in a significant difference,
t ₍₁₇₅₎ = 9.59, p < .001, in that sexual violence had more impact (M = 3.7, SD = 1.5) than physical violence (M = 2.6, SD = 1.4), d = .76.

Comparisons across forms of violence resulted in stronger differences than within forms of violence. In other words, physical violence had stronger differences to sexual violence than, for example, the differences between physical violence and indirectly witnessing violence in the media.

All types of witnessing physical violence (against children, against adults, and in the media) had more impact on children than their own direct experience of violence. Witnessing physical violence against adults and in the media both had more impact on children than witnessing physical violence against other children. Witnessing violence against adults, however, had more impact than witnessing physical violence in the media. The summary of those t-tests indicates that physical violence involving adults had the most impact on children.

Similar to physical violence, witnessing emotional violence in the media and against adults had more impact on children than direct exposure to emotional violence. While witnessing emotional violence against adults and in the media also had more impact than witnessing it against children, witnessing emotional violence against adults had more impact than watching it in the media.

Sexual violence elicited some different results. Children reported their direct experiences of sexual violence as having more impact (in contrast to physical and emotional violence). Real life sexual violence had more impact on children than watching it in the media. When comparing the different types of violence, the results indicate that while emotional violence was related to higher impact on children than physical violence, sexual violence had the most impact of all three forms of violence.

In most measures of impact, witnessing violence had more effect on children than direct exposure to violence. In all cases, witnessing the different forms of violence against adults had the most impact. Except for sexual violence, even watching violence on television, videos or movies had a greater impact than direct exposure to physical and emotional violence.
Correlational Analysis of the Impact of Violence on Children

Similar to the analyses regarding prevalence the relationships found in the impact analyses were generally weak and therefore of little practical significance. Of interest are the correlations that were not found to be significant (i.e., decile, number of children in the home). The following table presents these results.

For emotional violence, higher impact of direct exposure was related to whether the student reported that bullying occurred at his or her school (r = .16, p < .001). Similarly, a relationship was found between higher impact of witnessing emotional violence against other children and children reporting that bullying happened at their school (r = .19, p <.01). These results suggest that much of children’s emotional violence is experienced at school and that its impact was also increased if the children were bullied at school. Furthermore, higher impact of witnessing emotional violence in the media was also related to the reporting of bullying at school, however this was a weak correlation (r = .15, p < .001). Higher impact of witnessing emotional violence against adults was related to being younger in age (r = -.15, p < .001). Although a weak correlation, it seems likely that a younger a child would be more affected by emotional violence involving adults.

Higher impact of directly experiencing sexual violence was related to gender
(r = .16, p < .01); “doing things in the neighbourhood” (r = .20, p < .01); “stealing other children’s belongings” (r = .22, p < .01); and whether teachers praise pupils
(r = .20, p < .01). It seems that the impact of sexual violence may have a higher impact on girls and that greater involvement in the neighbourhood (away from parental supervision) places children at greater risk of sexual victimisation. Furthermore higher impact of witnessing sexual violence in the media was related to children’s perceptions of bullying at school (r = .16, p < .001). In other words if there was bullying at school, children were more affected by witnessing sexual violence in the media. A weak relationship was found between higher impact of witnessing sexual violence against adults and “getting drunk or high on drugs” (r = -.28, p < .01), which might contribute towards negative outcomes for children. Caution must be exercised when interpreting these results due to the small order of the correlations.
Research Question Three:

What factors mitigate and reduce the impact of violent events on children?
Research Question Three addressed some of the moderating factors that might mitigate and reduce the impact of violent and traumatic events on children. In particular the question examines how their coping experiences affect children who have experienced violence.

First this section examines some mitigating factors and useful responses in dealing with the aftermath of a child’s violent event by presenting the data from the items in the questionnaire concerning aetiology, attribution, and ultimately the children’s perceptions of their coping experiences. These questions focus on the examination of children’s coping mechanisms in order to identify the protective factors that buffer children from the impact of violent and traumatic events.

The measure of impact (Likert-type scale for “how bad”?) was used alongside the coping questions to analyse the data. First, the data were presented in terms of descriptive reporting, by means of frequency of response percentages, and then by correlational analysis and multiple regression analyses. Next the data about building environments that reduce the probability of negative experiences are reported. This section focuses on the characteristics and cultures of schools that support children who have experienced violence.
Moderating Factors: Children’s Coping Experiences

To explore children’s perceptions about aetiology and the coping strategies they used for their experiences of physical, emotional and sexual violence, as well as other traumatic events, the participating children in this study were asked four questions:

The children’s perceptions of how they coped varied with the type of violence they experienced. Very few children attributed the blame to themselves for the physical (12%), emotional (9%) or sexual violence (6%) they experienced. Approximately half of the children exposed to physical or emotional violence felt that they might have been able to stop it or make a difference to the outcome. In comparison 82% of the children who experienced sexual violence perceived they could not stop their victimisation. Furthermore, while children who experienced physical violence (42%) or emotional violence (30%) believed they might have partly contributed to the violent outcome, this was the perception of only 4% of sexual violence victims. Of the children who had experienced sexual violence, 78% considered that those who knew about it had not helped them. Indeed sexual violence was the one experience where children stated very strongly that it was not their fault, they could not stop it or make a difference to what happened, and those who knew did not help them to cope with their victimisation.

By far the majority of children reported that they were not to blame for violence that happened to them. More children also reported that they could not stop or make a difference to what happened to them. Physical violence was the only type of violence with supportive outcomes if people knew about what had happened. Children reported that other people did not help them to feel any better about the aftermath of either emotional or sexual violence. Sexual violence is the event in which the children considered that (1) they had less power; (2) the victimisation was not their fault;
(3) they could not stop it happening; and (4) people who knew did not, or could not, help them. More children felt they were at least partly to blame for the physical and emotional violence that happened to them, and that they could have either helped to stop or prevent it happening to them.

Who the children informed about their victimisation (and whether they told anyone at all) depended on the type of violence they experienced. Friends and classmates were the most likely to be told about physical (28%) and emotional violence (36%), followed by parents or caregivers (27% and 19% respectively). Telling “no one” was the third choice for children who experienced emotional abuse (18% chose this option), but it was by far the most frequent response for children victimised by sexual violence (43%). Disclosing to friends was the next most frequently reported choice (18%), closely followed by parents (16%) for sexual violence. “Telling a teacher” was infrequently reported.

Relationships between variables were tested in part by examining correlations between the impact and demographic and coping variables. Table 4.14 presents these data to show the relationship of whether the children coped well or poorly with the aftermath of their violent physical, emotional or sexual experiences.

Thus, multiple regressions were performed to test the relationship of children’s coping skills on each of the impact variables (for physical, emotional, and sexual violence). Multiple regression allowed the independent variables to be entered separately to assess the importance of each variable controlling for variables entered earlier in the process. For example, the first variables entered were those demographic variables to be controlled for. After the amount of variance in the dependent variable was explained by the possible controls, then the coping variables were entered to determine whether they contributed above and beyond those variables previously entered. A significant regression model indicates a moderating type of relationship between variables with the additive chain predicting the outcome. The amount of variance in the dependent variable explained by the moderating model was calculated and discussed.

Model F (11, 733) = 9.01, p < .001, Adjusted R² = .11

Using the same model for predicting the impact of physical violence, a multiple regression was conducted for sexual violence. The independent variables were entered as follows: Step 1 – gender, age, number of children in home, adult at home, parents know whereabouts, decile of school, size of school; Step 2 – “my fault”, “could stop it, or make a difference”, “others helped”, and “how often” did the sexual violence happen. Table 4.16 shows the multiple regression analysis used to determine the predictive ability of the impact of sexual violence on children’s coping experiences.

Model F (11, 71) = 2.31, p < .05, Adjusted R² = .15

A third multiple regression was run to predict the impact of emotional violence, using the same model as for physical and sexual violence. The independent variables were entered as follows: Step 1 – gender, age, number of children in home, adult at home, parents know whereabouts, decile of school, size of school; Step 2 – “my fault”, “could stop it, or make a difference”, “others helped”, and “how often” did the emotional violence happen. Table 4.17 shows the multiple regression analysis used to determine the predictive ability of the impact of emotional violence on children’s coping experiences.

Model F (11, 855) = 11.18, p < .001, Adjusted R² = .12

The regressions predicted different relationships, depending on the type of violence being analysed. More occurrences of physical and emotional violence increased its impact, however, this was not significant in relation to the impact of sexual violence. Physical and emotional violence had more impact on younger children, whereas age was not a predictor for sexual violence. With the coping variables the only significant predictor was that thinking they might have stopped it or made a difference increased the impact of physical violence.

Contrary to expectation the regressions found no relationships between children’s experiences of physical, sexual, or emotional violence and the decile rating of their school. This is an important finding because it indicates that school factors other than socioeconomic ones can interact with child experiences to reduce the impact of violence on children.
Moderating Factors: Constructive Family and Leisure Variables

Descriptive data are presented on the demographic and constructive family variables to determine whether children’s home circumstances played a role in preventing victimisation or violent and antisocial behaviour. Results showed that over two thirds of the participants reported doing things at home or with their family at least twice a week and nearly as many also visited with friends about as often as they did things in the neighbourhood. On the other hand “hanging around town” was only a regular activity for about a third of the children, with two fifths reporting “being bored” at least two or three times a week. A minority of children (about one in five or more) appeared to have relatively limited spare time options that involved family, friends or neighbourhood activities and frequently spent time “hanging about town”.

Questions were also asked about their living arrangements and patterns of parental supervision. Of all the children who participated in the survey 91% had other children besides themselves living in their home; 89% of the respondents said that when they get home from school there is usually an adult or someone over 14 years there; and 11% did not have an adult supervising them after school. Furthermore, 67% reported that their parents always knew their whereabouts and who they were with; 19% said their parents usually knew; 10% said they sometimes knew their children’s whereabouts; and 4% reported that their parents never knew where they were or whom they were with.

The data indicate that at least two thirds of the participating children seemed to be well supervised. While 11% did not have adult supervision, no significant correlations were found between having an adult at home after school and the children’s self reports of violence.

Also of relevance to this study is whether children’s perceptions of their violent experiences are linked to their self-reports of antisocial behaviour. This raises further questions as to whether the impact of violence predicts the likelihood that these children will engage in antisocial activities to a much greater degree than children who have not been exposed to violence. Also, are the children who reported a lack of support in helping them to cope with the violent event the ones more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour?

First the participating children were asked about their own involvement in antisocial activities. The results indicate that at least 3 times a week 18% have threatened, frightened, excluded, ganged up on, or called other children names; 32% have punched, kicked or hit their siblings; and 10% have punched, kicked or hit other children. Some children engaged in gang violence. (e.g., “I had a fight to get in a gang and beat up someone while I was getting hit”). Data also indicate that a third of the sample reported fighting or bullying siblings and at least 10% to 20% bully other children regularly. A very small minority of children reported engaging in other types of at-risk behaviour. For example: 3% have stolen other children’s belongings; 4% have experimented with alcohol, drugs, or solvents; 2% have run away from home; and 3% have shoplifted, stolen, burgled, tagged, or damaged property.

The next stage of analysis was to determine whether the children reporting their own antisocial behaviour were the ones also exposed to the different types of violence. Correlations were used to describe the relationship between children’s exposure to violence and their own self-reported antisocial behaviour. Results show children who experienced physical violence were more likely to be physically aggressive with other children (r = .24, p < .01). There were relationships between children who have had physical violence happen to them and their emotional bullying of other children

As a measure of variance the standard deviation scores indicate that most of the children’s scores are grouped around the mean, showing that most children were in agreement. Therefore the students who participated in this survey generally responded positively to questions about their school, and in particular, about their teachers. The frequency data regarding the participating children’s responses to those questions about the characteristics of their school, including their qualitative comments are reported next.

Although 12% of the participating children said they do not like going to school at all, 42%, by rating their enjoyment at ‘4’ or ‘5’ on the rating scale, said that they like going to school very much (“I’m included. You get accepted for what you are. It’s a safe school. Teachers are very fair”; “I really enjoy it. I moved from another school where people were mean to me, but now I have lots of kind friends”). Bullying was the main reason why children said they did not like school and many students voiced similar feelings to this comment: “If there were no bullies it would make it a better place.”

The majority of the respondents thought they were able to concentrate and learn at school. On the 5 point scale, 85% of these children rated their ability to learn and concentrate at either ‘3’, ‘4’, or ‘5’. Indicative comments included: “I can work and know that I am safe from my past”; “We do lots of fun things but we learn things by example; “They treat pupils individually and have excellent classes and extra topics (future problem solving).” Others referred to factors that could make it easier to learn (“If I could see my mum properly and if my behaviour was a bit better”; “If I had a little more encouragement and some easier work”; “If everyone was quiet and they listened”).

Many children rated their school according to how safe they felt. Far more children felt safe at school than unsafe. Only 12% thought their schools were unsafe (‘1’ or ‘2’ on the rating scale) whereas 88% rated their school as a ‘3’, ‘4’, or ‘5’. Children provided some reasons for why they felt safe at school: “It’s a safe place coz I trust all the teachers and most kids”; “I feel safe and secure. I don’t often feel rejected”; and “It has a well managed playground and great teachers.”

Better adult supervision could, however, be a factor in schools where children considered safety to be an issue. Some indicative comments included: “There is often a reasonably vigorous fight on the back field before a sports game as when we are deciding on the teams a person gets lowly [sic] offended because they don’t want to go on that team”; “If we had a teacher on the field I think there would be no wrestling”; and “School could be better if we had a playground or something to do at lunch and interval instead of just walking around school.”
Is there a teacher to talk to if bad things happen?

Almost half of the participants (49%) rated their experiences of having a teacher to talk to if bad things happen as 5 out of 5. The children identified a range of factors that made it easy for them to talk to their teachers. Teachers understood (“The teachers understand and help me when I’m sad or stuck”); they were available (“There is always a person to talk to when something is wrong and I feel comfortable around my teachers”; “It is a nice learning environment and a friendly place. If I’m in trouble there is always someone there to help.”); and approachable (“We get good education. All teachers are nice and friendly. They listen to all of our problems and try to solve them”). A small minority reported feeling fearful about the outcomes of trusting people at their school. One child said: “School could be better for me if I could talk to people and know it would be private.”

The majority (82%) considered that children attending their school knew the rules “well” or “very well,” even if they were not always heeded. Several comments referred to positive aspects of the school rules (“I like the rule treat others as you wish to be treated”; “Everyone, children included, have equal responsibility. We have a strong culture”, and “It [the school] punishes naughty kids”). Conversely, rules were given as a reason why children felt that their school could be improved upon: “School could be better if our teacher had never changed the rules”; and “If the teachers weren’t so strict and if we had better rules.”

Most (82%) stated that there were “some” to “many” children in their school who were a bad influence on other children. For example, (1) “School could be better for me if there was less bullying and threatening and if I can get on with my life and my work”; (2) “School could be better for me if there weren’t so many distractions during class. And no one being hurt emotionally”; and (3) “If some bad kids were taken away so we can learn better without their annoyance.”

Nearly half (47%) gave their teachers the highest rating possible for this question. Although 28% thought that their teachers gave “little” or “no” praise, 87% of the respondents considered their teachers gave them “some” to “a lot” of praise. Indicative comments included: (1) “They treat everyone fairly. And help us learn lots. They praise us a lot which makes us feel good and like we’ve achieved something really good”;

Nearly three quarters of the children (72%) stated that there is “some” to “a lot” of bullying at their schools. Many children made comments about bullying, and these chosen quotes reflect the voices of a number of participants. “I wish the meanies would stop picking on me”; “School could be better for me if no-one would beat me up and if people didn’t tease me because I’m fat”; “School could be better for me if there were less bullies and they were in a separate area”; and “School could be better for me if no one bullied people and everyone cooperated together.”

Most of the participants (84%) reported that teachers are “fair” to “very fair” in their treatment of pupils. More teachers were given the highest rating (“5”) than any other rating on the scale. Comments indicate the value they place on fair teachers. “We have a nice teacher. He has the three Fs. They are firm, fair, and friendly”; and “We have a fair but firm principal.” Other comments indicated concerns about unfairness. (e.g., “Teachers shouldn’t keep people in when it is a sunny day”; and “School could be better for me if teachers will listen to me and hear what I’ve got to say when I’m in trouble and I didn’t do it”; “Teachers should not judge straight away and not make you say what they want to hear”; and “School could be better for me if a certain teacher would be fair and stop having mood swings”).

Very few children (8%) rated their school negatively. Again more children gave their school a ‘5’ rating than any other score. Overall 92% of these respondents considered their school to be a “good” to “very good” school and they were also eloquent in praise for their schools (“It is a great influence on me and I think it is a great school”; “It’s a nice school and an involved school. I like the teachers. Lots of friends”; and “It is a good school for me. It teaches me with English because I didn’t have strong English”).

Many children seem to have rated their school according to how safe they felt. Far more children felt safe at school than unsafe. Only 12% thought their schools were unsafe (‘1’or ‘2’ on the rating scale). What is not so clear is whether the 12% who thought their school to be unsafe included those children who reported experiencing physical violence by adults. The results of the data analysis indicate those children were spread across the 1-5 scale for the item: ‘my school is a safe place.’ This indicates a normative distribution and is to be expected. Although statistically significant, this can be explained by the large database.

It seems too that school is not all about feeling safe. While there were some humorous comments such as “if the people that pass forward in touch could go to another school”, analysis of the children’s comments revealed that, more than anything else, their perceptions of school were based on whether they have friends at school and if they like their teachers. Indicative comments included: “The teachers are kind and I like learning and my friends are always there for me”; “All my friends are here and our teacher is real cool”; and “There are good teachers, good students, and fun work and sports. I feel I belong here.” Conversely children who held negative perceptions of their school did not rate their teachers or their peers. These children considered that school would be better for them if: “I didn’t have to worry about my friends ditching me”, “People stop saying I am dumb because I am”; “Mrs. [name of teacher] dies and goes to hell”; and “There were no bullies and nicer people, no hurting.”

Summary
This chapter reported the results of the questionnaire items that addressed the three research questions of the study. Children’s perceptions of the prevalence, incidence and impact of violence experienced or witnessed by them were examined and factors (e.g., children’s coping experiences) that might mitigate and reduce its impact were explored.

The main themes emerging from these results indicate that New Zealand children experience a range of violent events. The results revealed high prevalence and incidence rates, particularly for physical and emotional violence. Emotional violence was the most prevalent form of direct and indirect violence. Children perpetrated most of the physical and emotional violence against other children and the sexual violence was perpetrated by adults. While t-tests found emotional violence to have more impact than physical violence, findings from this study indicate that of the three forms of violence, sexual violence was rated decisively higher for its impact. When the impact scores were examined, indications are that if adults were involved in the event it not only had more impact on the child, but also affected coping strategies and decisions about disclosure (for example, whether or not to tell anyone and who to tell). Results also showed that whatever type of violence they witnessed happening to adults had a high impact on the children who witnessed it. A key finding is that for these children witnessing violence against others had more impact than violence directed at them. Except for direct sexual victimisation even witnessing violence in the media had a greater impact on children than violence directed against them. The results of this study highlight the impact of witnessing violence on children.

Although the correlation method does not determine any cause and effect relationship between variables, associations between these variables could be explored and various themes have emerged. The correlations yielded weak relationships but were consistent with the multiple regression analyses. Multiple regression analyses revealed that the impact of physical, emotional and sexual violence might be predicted by certain sociodemographic and coping variables, although the predictors varied according to the type of violence experienced. Key findings were that the younger the child, the more likelihood that the child would highly rate the impact of violent experiences. Physical and emotional violence had more impact on younger children, but age made no difference to the impact of sexual violence. Gender also predicted prevalence and impact for some forms of violence, for example, boys reported more physical violence. More occurrences of physical and emotional violence increased its impact, but this was not a factor for sexual violence.

Except for physical violence where some children thought they might have contributed to getting hit, punched or beaten, children reported that they were not to blame or that they could not have prevented the violence from happening. How the event is dealt with directly correlates with how children cope. In particular children who reported experiences of sexual violence also reported that people who knew about the incident did not help them to cope afterwards.

Most children were positive about their schools and teachers and this finding invites further research to test the theory that the culture and ethos of schools may help to reduce and mitigate the effects of violence. The next chapter provides a discussion of these results and explores the possible implications of the research findings.
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence, incidence and impact of the different forms of violence experienced or witnessed by children and to explore the factors that might mitigate and reduce their impact on children. The study provides data on children’s experiences as recipients and witnesses of violence in New Zealand. This large quantitative study of violence with a representative sample of students in Years 5 to 8 can be compared to data from international studies. Most studies of this nature are epidemiological but the present study is different in that it takes an educational approach to researching the phenomena of violence. The study revealed large numbers of children who had either been victims or witnesses of violence. These experiences were reported by children to have had a notable impact on their well-being. Observations of violent events were rated as having a more powerful impact on children than their own victimisation.

Employing the passive consent procedure was another key contribution of the present study. This procedure allowed children to report their experiences with violence rather than having parents and organisations represent the views of children. This approach may provide a more accurate representation of children’s experiences. Through the passive consent procedure a high participation rate helped to identify more accurate rates of prevalence and incidence. These results, gained from the child’s perspective, should better inform policy development and contribute to the creation of safer environments for children and to the provision of supports that will lessen the impact of violence when it is experienced.

This New Zealand research study is timely and relevant because: (1) increasing attention is being given to violence; (2) there is greater recognition of the impact of violence upon children; and (3) there are links between children’s experiences of violence and later juvenile crime. There is also a need to acknowledge the right of children to have a voice about important issues in their lives; for children to be safe from the effects of violence; to break the conspiracy to hide and conceal through secrecy; to know the specific characteristics of schools which help to reduce violence; and to learn how to reduce the impact of violence on learning, health, and development of children.

This chapter utilises the results of the study to extend understanding of children’s perceptions of their experiences of violence. The findings will be discussed within the context of the existing literature as well as with regard to issues that could be addressed through future research. Limitations of the study are also presented.

The present study found that children experience the same types of violence that adults experience, for example, robbery, physical, emotional, and sexual assaults. This is consistent with other studies (e.g., Finkelhor, 1995; Morgan & Zedner, 1992). Children are also vulnerable to other forms of victimisation specific to their status, such as physical and emotional neglect, family abduction, and bullying. Neglect was outside the scope of this study and only a small minority of children reported experiences of abduction (e.g., “When I was abducted and I might go back I’m scared”). Bullying, however, was found to be a common childhood experience for many participants (“My friends turned against me and are being very mean. They always have something to tease me about - like my teeth, what I look like, my reactions and who I hang around with”). Whether they were rare or common occurrences, the participants’ remarks in this study support Finkelhor’s (1995) view that events involving adults “are especially traumatic for children because they “violate children’s dependency needs and the social expectation that adults will respect these needs” (p. 181). One girl illustrated this point by stating: “My family and I were going on holiday to ___ (our home country), and because I’m 12, I have to sign my own name on my passport so my father took me to the computer room and told me he wasn’t my biological father and that I had been taken away from my real father. To top that off my real dad, he used to beat my mum and he kidnapped me. IT REALLY HURT. Someday I want to meet him.”

Data from the study indicate that a high number of New Zealand children experience being punched, kicked, beaten, or hit as part of their childhood. In the present study 63% of the participants said they had experienced physical violence at some time. The prevalence rate for direct experiences of physical violence in this New Zealand study exceeds those of international studies (Britain, 33%; Italy, 50%; Scotland, 50%; USA, 50%).

The national study of American children by Finkelhor and colleagues (2005) also reported high levels of victimisation. In that study more than one half of the children surveyed reported experiencing a physical assault within the year of data collection. It is possible that the New Zealand figures are higher because the prevalence rates relate to whether the violent event “ever happened” as opposed to the American study, which focused on the year that the survey was implemented. When the incidence numbers for direct physical violence during the year of data collection are totalled, a comparable picture emerges because the present study found that 53% reported physical violence happening to them, ranging from one-off incidents to more than 10 times incidents during that year. Despite variations in way the rates are compared, most of the international studies reported that up to one half of their participants experienced physical violence (Anderson et al., 1994; Baldry, 2003; Durrant, 1999; Hartless et al., 1995; Maung, 1995).

Also of note in the present study are the high numbers of children who witnessed violent incidents against others. Much of the witnessed violence involved violence against other children. Furthermore, the majority of participants reported that other children perpetrated the physical and emotional violence witnessed against children, typically at school. This finding is consistent with Sullivan’s (2000b) view of children as bystanders.

A smaller minority reported witnessing violence against adults, compared to the number who reported witnessing violence against other children. Physical violence against adults was most commonly “watching adults fight”; usually their parents or relatives. More students (27%) reported witnessing physical violence against adults than emotional (24%) or sexual (7%) violence. Typically this happened at home or at someone else’s house. However, of the 27% who reported witnessing violence against adults, 23% reported witnessing this violence more than 10 times in the year of the survey’s implementation. An indicative comment included: “My Mum and her boyfriend always get in arguments and I’ve seen heaps of things get smashed.” It seems likely therefore that the violence was ongoing for this group of children. A few of the children’s comments described watching violence in the community (“I watched a kid and her mother getting a hiding by the father at Gymnastics”), but this was more rare. In general the children’s experiences of indirect violence were more personal in nature and involved adults they knew. The prevalence rates for witnessing physical violence at home and at school are of concern because the data suggest that the lives of many children involve an unacceptable level of violence. These findings are especially concerning because some studies have reported that children who witness violence are at greater risk of being physically harmed themselves (Maxwell, 1994; Perry, 2004; Weis et al., 1998).

Children rated any forms of violence involving adults (usually parents or relatives) as having the most impact on them. Their comments about the impact of physical violence often described the children’s anguish when they were punched, kicked, beaten, or hit by adults, probably because it is difficult for children to equate why people they love would physically hurt them. For example, “On Christmas Day my Dad punched me in the face. It hurt me bad and I can’t forget it. It is still in my head every night and I can’t help it.”

Physical violence involving other children (such as being in a physical fight or punch up with peers) was given lower impact ratings, perhaps because fighting is perceived by some children (particularly boys) to be part of their childhood. Interestingly, witnessing physical violence in the media had more impact on these participants than witnessing physical violence against other children. A possible explanation is that more children reported witnessing media violence than real life violence. However, this argument does not hold true for witnessing physical violence against adults, which had a far greater impact than watching media violence. The finding that witnessing media violence had more impact than witnessing violence against other children was contrary to expectations. It was thought “real life” violence would be considered more serious, in the same way that children perceived the impact of witnessing violence against adults. However, some children described their turmoil of feeling powerless to intervene when witnessing bullying, perhaps for fear of the bullies turning on them. As stated by this boy, “My friend got body slammed before my eyes and I was too weak to help him get up.”

The reasons that children rated the impact of witnessing violence against others as greater than the impact of their own victimisation are difficult to explain. It is possible that children who had never experienced violence themselves were more upset when they witnessed violent events (even on television) and consequently rated it highly for its impact on them. Just as plausible, however, is the explanation that children rated very highly the impact of witnessing violence against someone they love.

Findings from this study that the consequences of violence can be severe are consistent with those of other researchers (e.g., Howing, 1993; Maxwell, 1994; Reiss et al., 1993). Fear is widely reported by children as their most common response to victimisation (Morgan & Zedner, 1992; Yegidis, 1992). Violence also changes normal behaviour and restricts social life because of the child’s fear of meeting the perpetrator. In Morgan and Zedner’s (1992) study this fear ranged from nervousness about going to specific places, to a more generalised pervading and often debilitating sense of terror, with the most profound psychological damage being ongoing changes in personality or behaviour. Responses, such as, “I haven’t wanted to go walking alone since” were identified in the present study.

A key finding is that children rated the impact of witnessing violence more highly than the impact of physical violence directed at them. Possibly this result occurred because more children have witnessed violence rather than directly experiencing it themselves. However, while the focus must also remain on keeping children safe from violence, the high prevalence and impact rates of witnessing physical violence found in this study underscore the need to curb the amount of violence witnessed by children and to find better ways of supporting children to reduce the impact when it is observed.

Sexual violence was the least prevalent type of violence experienced by children, with 11% reporting experiences of sexual violence. The rate of victimisation reported is relatively consistent with American rates of 12% (Finkelhor et al., 2005; OCAN, 2000). Three quarters of the children who reported sexual victimisation in the present study also reported experiencing this within the last year, which may suggest that the sexual violence was ongoing. The age of children in this study, with many likely to be entering puberty, might heighten this as a vulnerable age group for sexual abuse by adults. Children in the present study reported experiences of sexual violence, largely perpetrated by adults, and highlighted an obvious difference between primary school students and secondary students. In another New Zealand study of 200 female and 170 male high school students, 77% of female and 67% of males reported one or more occurrences of unwanted sexual activity. Those findings indicate that abuse amongst peers (rather than adults) is far more prevalent in older students with the onset of dating relationships (Jackson, 2002, as cited in NZ Family Planning Association, 2006).

Somewhat surprising was the number of children who reported witnessing sexual violence against both adults (7%) and other children (10%). Sexual violence was defined in the questionnaire as “being asked to do unwanted sexual things or having unwanted sexual touching”, so it remains unclear as to precisely what the children witnessed. Some of the written comments, however, were fairly explicit, suggesting that children were likely to have witnessed a range of sexual violations (and indeed other forms of victimisation as well). The sexual violations ranged from unwanted sexual comments to more serious physical forms of sexual violence. For example one child described, “When I had to watch my best friend made to drop her pants in front of a man and have him smash a beer bottle in her face.” Another child wrote: “My Dad went to jail for raping me.”

It is likely that some children found their sexual victimisation too difficult to write about. For the questions on sexual violence, “something bad has happened to me, but I did not feel comfortable writing about it”, was a relatively common response. Later in the questionnaire, when they were asked to rate their life’s worst experiences, these particular children rated “bad sexual things happening to me” as their worst experience, which reinforces the importance of providing participants with more than one opportunity to report their victimisation.

The present study is in line with other studies showing that people known to children (rather than strangers) perpetrate most of the sexual violence against them. This form of victimisation is described as dependency-related victimisation because it often involves people on whom the child is dependent and is a direct consequence of the unique dependency status of children (Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994a; Finkelhor, 1995). Not surprisingly, most of the sexual violence against children in this study occurred in someone else’s home or in their own homes rather than at school or in the community. The results did not differentiate between parents and caregivers, but one important finding is that “other known adults” (as opposed to the child’s parent or caregiver) were more likely to commit sexual violence against children. The finding is important and troubling because “strangers” are not necessarily those who commit sexual violence against children. Other known adults possibly include relatives (e.g., uncles, cousins) and youth or church leaders; that is, adults who might be trusted by children. The results suggests that children known to adults who are predisposed to engage in unwanted or unlawful sexual activity, are especially vulnerable.

Of the children who reported this form of victimisation, the majority rated the impact of sexual violence at the highest level for all forms (direct occurrences, witnessed against children, witnessed against adults, and witnessed in the media). Sexual violence was the only type of violence where children rated the impact of direct violence (“happened to them”) higher than indirect violence (“watched happening”). In addition, correlational analyses revealed that for children who reported experiences of either direct or indirect experiences of sexual violence, higher impact was related to some of the antisocial behaviours, and illustrates how negative outcomes for children can be attributed to their negative experiences.

The study therefore verifies the short- and long-term effects that sexual violence has on its victims. This was confirmed twice in the survey: first, when the children were asked to rate the impact for this type of violence; and secondly, with the weighting it was given by the children when asked about the worst things that had ever happened to them. As previously stated, a few children wrote comments on their questionnaire, stating that sexual violence had happened to them but it was too difficult to write about. None of the participating children made similar comments in the sections on physical and emotional violence, which emphasises the powerful impact that sexual violence can have on children.

The definition of sexual violence for this study includes children’s perceptions of what could be termed sexual harassment. Sexual harassment, in most cases, does not involve sexual assault. The fact that most children rated highly the impact of sexual violence, even though some children would have only been reporting their experiences of sexual harassment, illustrates how distressing it can be for the children who experience this type of unwelcome attention. This finding is consistent with other studies (e.g., Hyman, 1997) that indicate the impact on victims of sexual harassment whereby victims become fearful, anxious, withdrawn, angry, or suffer severe loss of self-esteem. Those studies indicate that students’ lack of faith in school authorities’ ability to protect them may result in lower academic performance, retaliation, withdrawal from school, or acceptance of their role as sexual victims. The present study did not examine the impact of violence in terms of academic performance; however, future research could examine this relationship.

Of the three forms of violence, emotional violence was the most prevalent type of both direct and indirect violence. This finding is consistent with other studies. Emotional violence or bullying is considered to be the most common form of abuse for 9 to 13-year-olds and the peak time for such victimisation by peers (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Lapsley, 1993; Nansel et al., 2001). The participants in this study were in the same age group as other studies, and the findings confirmed that peers perpetrated most of the emotional violence reported by children.

Crick and Grotpeter (1995) used the term “relational aggression” to describe emotional violence by children, including the covert intimidation practices reported by the participants in the present study. During the data collection phase of the research, in every classroom the children indicated their personal understanding of the term emotional violence with smirks and affirmation of the terminology when asked if they understood the definition after it was explained to them. The results of the survey later confirmed that for these children, being left out and excluded, not spoken to, and gossiped about was a common occurrence for them and their friends. An indicative comment was: “When my friends be nice to me one day and the next day they fight me or hurt my feelings.”

Bullying was by far the most common form of emotional violence experienced by children and children were also most likely to be the perpetrators against other children. The study confirms that bullying happens in all schools. Indications are that both boys and girls are subjected to being threatened, called names, ganged up on, left out, not spoken to, “narked” on, gossiped about, and having rumours spread about them. The emotional violence definition in the questionnaire aimed to elicit reports of either emotional abuse or bullying (by both adults and children) and therefore did not necessarily comply with bullying definitions in the literature that refer to ongoing incidents. However, an important finding was the high number of children who reported they had experienced emotional violence more than 10 times in the last year, which is consistent with most definitions of bullying (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Olweus, 1993) as opposed to one-off incidents.

In the preliminary study (Maxwell & Carroll-Lind, 1996), emotional bullying was experienced by 70% of the participants. This current study found that 80% of children reported victimisation by bullying, with an even larger percentage (88%) reporting their role as a bystander. A survey of New Zealand (North Island) secondary schools by Adair and colleagues found that 75% of the students had been bullied within the current year (Adair, 1999; Adair et al., 2000). In that study 15 of the 17 items related to physical bullying. These figures may support the public perception of the increased prevalence of bullying in New Zealand. In comparison, Rigby’s (1999) Australian survey found that 50% of the 8 to 12-year-old participants reported being teased or called hurtful names. Baldry’s (2003) Italian study found more than half (59%) of all students reported being victimised or bullied within the previous three months.

The rates for this study therefore, are relatively high and other New Zealand studies (e.g., Adair et al., 2000; Maharaj et al., 2000) also claim that New Zealand’s prevalence and incidence rates of bullying are high in comparison to other countries. However, caution is required when making generalisations across studies with different ages and different timeframes. Most studies require more than one event before it can be classified as bullying. Perhaps the present study reports more bullying because the incidence is measured over the year (“since Christmas”) rather than the last month or last three months common to many other studies.

The children also reported being emotionally abused by adults, albeit to a lesser extent. Some children detailed a range of abusive behaviours, for example, “Being yelled at, being called names, being kicked, punched, being ignored, being told off for hardly anything, being put outside in the rain, being sent to my room, my sister blocking her ears when I’m talking to her.”

Results revealed that emotional violence was the most prevalent form of violence experienced by the participating children and that the impact of emotional violence was greater than for physical violence. Similar to physical violence, witnessing emotional violence against others had more impact than if it happened to the children themselves. This was a key finding. Although witnessing emotional violence against adults was the least mentioned experience, it had the highest impact on children. Comments such as “I’ve been scared when my Mum and Dad fight because I don’t know who to go to” demonstrate the dilemma for children when they have to choose between the two people they love the most. Section Three of the New Zealand Domestic Violence Act (1995) states that:

Violence occurs against a child if a person causes or allows the child to see or hear the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a person with whom the child has a domestic relationship, or puts the child or allows the child to be put, at real risk of seeing or hearing that abuse occurring.
While this definition states that violence is committed against children if they are psychologically abused by being allowed to, or even put at risk of witnessing violence, the study found that many children are clearly being victimised in this way and that this form of violence has a traumatic effect on them. When describing the impact of emotional abuse a common theme was children’s recurring thoughts about the parental violence. Indicative comments were: “I can’t stop thinking about it”, and “I could never sleep properly.” This finding is consistent with an earlier New Zealand study. Maxwell (1994) found that children who witness violence against someone they care about rate it to be as traumatic as if the violence had happened directly to them. Called the “unnoticed victims” by Maxwell (1994), children living in violent families are unlikely to be recognised as victims in their own right, even though their experiences as witnesses warrant it. While not the intent of the present study to follow this line of inquiry, the children’s comments nevertheless are in line with other studies (e.g., Morgan & Zedner, 1992; Osofsky, 1999), which show that few so-called indirect victims of violence emerge from their experiences without feeling some negative effects.

This study implies that emotional violence needs to be taken just as seriously as physical violence. Although physical violence has possibly always been considered more serious than emotional or psychological violence (people get criminal convictions for physical assault), an interesting finding of this study is the degree to which children feel unwanted, unloved, lonely, or lacking in meaningful friendships. Such feelings can be linked to forms of emotional abuse. Comparisons can be made with an Irish survey of children aged 8 to 15 years which found that half of the children believe that adults do not listen properly to children and one in five reported that “adults are harmful to children” (Kelly, 1998). There are clear indications from this study that children do worry about “bad things happening to them” and, for a variety of reasons, many feel unwanted and emotionally abused, either at home or school. For example, one child wrote, “Mum said she didn’t love me. I was sad”. An indicative school-based example was: “When my friends come up to me and say that they don’t like me anymore and go away then I don’t have anyone to play with and it makes me feel very hurt.” This next comment demonstrates the seriousness in which some children view their situation: “Mum has been quite a witch, spelt with a B, and started screaming at me. I’ve tried suicide 2 times because of her. She doesn’t know.”

Apart from the small percentage of children who reported emotional violence perpetrated by adults, the majority of the emotional victimisation could be described as bullying perpetrated by other children. Witnessing relational aggression among their social peer groups was a common form of bullying amongst these participants. Again, perhaps the level of impact was high because children were worried it would happen to them next time. Although witnessing emotional violence or bullying had more impact on children than direct experiences of bullying, many children also rated the impact of their own victimisation as high. For example, “My friend said I was going to get a bash from a fifth former in College. It has been going on for ages but I’m still afraid. It’s stopped now but still I’m scared.”

The impact of emotional violence was increased if it happened at school and underscores the effect that school bullying has on children. This finding has important implications for teachers and schools who have a legal responsibility to provide a safe learning environment, particularly when the impact of witnessing emotional violence was found to be associated with children’s perceptions of their school in relation to bullying and school safety.

The children reported being affected by emotional violence such as teasing and bullying. A few children even reported having to change schools to get away from the bullies. When answering the question as to “how school could be made better for them”, overwhelmingly the response from children in all the participating schools was about “getting rid of the bullies.” The impact of emotional violence seemed greater when the bullying involved criticism of themselves or other family members. For example, one child described how “People get mean to me because my Mum goes out with heaps of men.” Clearly emotional violence such as teasing and bullying is harmful for children. The comments from the children in this study indicate that the old adage “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me” is generally untrue. This finding adds to the weight of evidence elicited from other studies in this regard (Crick, Nelson, Morales, Cullerton-Sen, Casas, & Hickman, 2001; Lightner et al., 2000; Olweus, 2001; Raskauskas, 2005; Swearer, Grills, Haye, & Cary, 2004).
Moderating Contextual Factors
Demographic Factors

Both gender and age were found to be the demographic factors most likely to influence the impact of violence. The relationships found in the correlational analyses of impact revealed that younger children reported higher impact, as perhaps befits their level of development and maturity in terms of being able to conceptualise events. Statistically significant but weak relationships predicted the impact of emotional and sexual violence to be greater for girls, although in the multiple regression analyses only the impact of emotional violence was found to be greater for girls.

The results (frequencies and correlations) found boys were more likely than girls to be victims of physical violence and physical bullying, which is consistent with the research literature (e.g., Adair et al., 2000; Atlas & Pepler, 1998; Baldry, 2003; Whitney & Smith, 1993). The present study identified a similar pattern of gender related bullying to Baldry’s Italian study (2003) in that boys were more likely to report all types of direct bullying, that is, physical harm, threats, or verbal aggression, whereas girls more often reported being excluded, in line with relational aggression, which is done with the intent of causing psychological harm. Another New Zealand study of bullying (Adair et al., 2000) also found age and gender differences in their reported incidences of bullying. Sullivan, Cleary and Sullivan (2004) cite studies that explain the reasons why girls are consistently found to be less involved than boys in physical bullying. They consider the most common explanation is that girls bully to gain reassurance and affiliation whereas boys bully to display power and dominance. As most bullying incidents occur at school, knowledge of gender differences may help teachers to implement anti-bullying measures that help to either reduce or prevent the prevalence and incidence of bullying for both male and female students.
Family Factors

Contrary to expectations the multiple regression analyses did not predict a strong relationship between the number of children living in the home and the impact of violence. A number of studies have found that larger families may place added stress on families already at risk of violence (Groves, 1997; Pryor & Woodward, 1996; Weiss et al., 1998). There is a further link between socioeconomic status and educational achievement (Harker & Nash, 2006; MOE, 1997). If living in disadvantaged or dysfunctional families increases the risk of exposure to violence, large families should be a risk factor in the same way that other risk factors associated with economic disadvantage (for example, overcrowded houses, drugs, and alcohol) can have an adverse impact. Therefore it is somewhat surprising that this study differs from other research findings and the reasons are difficult to explain. The explanation could be due to cultural differences in the relationship between family size and violence between New Zealand and other Western countries. Alternatively, it may also be due to the nature of these data as the majority of children in this study reported four or fewer children in the home, with less than 7% of the sample having five or more children living in the home. There may not have been enough large families in this study to detect differences.

Examination of the most important people in a child’s environment (parents or caregivers) did not reveal strong results in terms of the adult supervision factors. An interesting finding, however, was linked to parental supervision and the impact of sexual violence. The impact was greater when parents knew the child’s whereabouts, perhaps suggesting that the perpetrator was known and trusted by the family.

Slight relationships were found between children’s witnessing of physical violence against both children and adults and their own engagement in antisocial behaviours. Other relationships were found between antisocial behaviour and types of violence. Children’s witnessing of bullying was statistically related to their involvement in bullying others. Finding that “children bully because they are bullied” extends the work of Widom (2000). In addition children who witnessed bullying were also statistically related to involvement in bullying others.

In terms of prevalence, witnessing violence was the most frequently reported experience of violence for the participants in this study. The highest prevalence and incidence rates related to watching violence on television, videos, or movies. This is consistent with Levin’s (1994) continuum of violence theory in which both entertainment and real life violence in the media constitute much of the violence in most children’s lives. A somewhat surprising finding is that witnessing physical violence in the media had more impact than if children directly experienced physical violence themselves. This finding provides evidence reported from children that exposure to media violence can and does have a negative effect on them. Media violence is the easiest to address and perhaps the main type of violence that can be prevented if parents would monitor what their children watch and policy makers would examine the types and timing of programmes for children to ensure that altruistic motives are practised.
Coping Factors

It was also of interest to examine whether children’s attributions and cognitions about the violent event were linked to its impact. The hypothesis was that children’s perceptions of whether they felt it was their fault or that they could stop it happening might affect the impact of violence. Similarly, the study aimed to explore whether feeling supported or not supported by the people who knew about the violence, affected the impact on children.

The findings revealed to some extent the ways in which children cope with various types of violent events. Any form of violence involving adults clearly increased the impact, which in turn increased children’s difficulty in coping. With the exception of physical violence (where some children admitted that they might have “partly” contributed to the violent outcome), most children felt that they were not to blame for what had happened to them. The multiple regression analyses predicted different relationships for the three types of violence. Children’s thinking that they could have “stopped it” or “made a difference” increased the impact of physical violence. The children’s comments suggest that some participants perceived they had contributed to the incident by “getting smart” or provoking the fight. This may explain why physical violence had less impact than emotional violence on children. However the damage of persistent abuse may be illustrated by the finding that the more frequently physical violence occurred the greater its impact.

With emotional violence, greater impact was predicted if the child was younger and a girl. However, the strength of these predictions was minor. Again the number of times the child was exposed to emotional violence increased its impact, thus confirming much of the literature on the effects of bullying. In many instances children felt that they were powerless to make a difference to what happened. Some children seemed to develop an overpowering sense of helplessness to their plight: “I am very miserable and I hate my life. Most people hurt my feelings. e.g. children at school, family at home and people I don’t even know. School would be better if some of the children were nicer to miserable children like me. I have one friend who sometimes sticks up for me.”

Certainly most of the children felt they were not to blame for their victimisation. The participants’ external attributions and their perceptions that they could not prevent the bullying might be considered to be a form of learned helplessness. Feeling powerless to stop bullying was also reported by a large number of participants in Adair et al.’s (2000) study and was highlighted by the researchers as one of the most concerning aspects of their study. In the present study, the feeling of powerlessness was also very apparent in relation to the children’s experiences of sexual violence. The issue of power affected children’s decisions about whether or not to disclose their victimisation and to whom they should disclose.

Children exposed to physical or emotional violence in this New Zealand study were more likely to inform their friends first. The peer group exerts a powerful influence on its members and previous studies (Anderson et al., 1994; Hartless et al., 1995) found that children do not always inform adults about either their victimisation or criminal activities. In the present study the majority of children who experienced sexual violence also chose not to disclose these experiences to friends. Of the children who were victimised by sexual violence, 43% did not tell anyone, compared to 18% of children who never disclosed to anyone about their experiences of emotional violence. In contrast Kelly’s (1998) Irish survey found that children are most likely to go to their mother to discuss problems, followed closely by father and friends. Only 27% of the

Children provided mixed answers when asked if those who knew about their experiences had helped them to cope. With physical and emotional violence, approximately the same number of children felt quite strongly either way about whether people helped or did not help them. Children who reported sexual violence felt they were not helped either at the time or later on. Indeed sexual violence stood out as being the one experience where children stated very strongly that it was not their fault; they could not stop it or make a difference to what happened, and those who knew did not help them to cope with their victimisation. Perhaps the experience is so overwhelming that the child feels little, if any, sense of the control over the situation.

The study’s findings suggest that coping strategies employed by children are different from those of adults. Other studies also indicate that children find it more difficult than adults to employ cognitive forms of coping. Bat-Zion and Levy-Shiff (1993) explain that children rely on adults to interpret cues and translate threatening situations and to determine the appropriate strategies to use. Some children in the present study appreciated the opportunity (via the questionnaire) to request help:
(“I think that the pink slip will help me” [pink form with contact details of counsellors]; “I am very miserable and I hate my life. I will leave my name with you”). Children’s coping strategies need to be understood in terms of their developmental stage. For some children completing the questionnaire was therapeutic (e.g., “This test has helped me cope with trouble”). Coping strategies that are appropriate for adults cannot necessarily be applied to children without modifications (Bat-Zion & Levy-Shiff, 1993; Raskauskas, 2005).

It was hoped that this study would identify whether children’s coping experiences could inform ways of reducing the impact of violent and traumatic events on children. But how children coped depended very much on the type of violence they experienced. Sexual violence, in particular, stood out for its negative outcomes compared to both physical and emotional violence. This may mean that schools need to consider employing different strategies for supporting children, according to the type of victimisation experienced.

The bimodal frequency in regard to the number of occurrences of violent experiences reported identified that the majority of children either reported a single event or a number of experiences. The reason might be that a single exposure would be easily remembered and children reporting a number of incidents would know they had experienced “a lot” of violence. The study’s findings that impact increases with the amount of exposure to violence (how many times it happened) may suggest that incidence could act as a barrier to the development of effective coping strategies.

Although some research studies show that children develop coping strategies that help them to survive traumatic experiences (Bear et al., 1993), these strategies may not be the best ones. For example, a number of children engage in acting out and antisocial behaviours as a result of their exposure to violence and abuse. There is evidence (e.g., Perry, 1996; Terr, 1991) to suggest that child victims of ongoing sexual abuse may provoke specific incidents as a way of gaining some form of control. They may think that if they cannot help the abuse happening they may be able to control the time and setting of when it happens. This study extends the findings of others (Bat-Zion & Levy-Shiff, 1993; Masten, 2001) that children need to be able to rely on adults to interpret cues and translate threatening situations and to determine the appropriate strategies to use. As asserted by Masten (2001) appropriate strategies are ones that protect or restore the efficacy of children’s basic adaptive systems.

Many comments in this study revealed the importance of other children within a child’s ecology. Other studies have found this also. Besag (1992) stated, “children without friends are left without a protective support system, a means whereby experience and knowledge can be shared and social skills tried out and developed”
(p. 37). In the present study an example of a child without a protective support system was expressed as “Being by myself, not playing with anybody”. Support was found to be one of the strongest predictors of successful problem solving and coping mechanisms and it is usually the children isolated from potential support systems that cope the least. This finding concurs with Cornille, Boroto, Barnes, and Hall (1996). Other studies have found the best predictor for bullying to be children who do not have close friends (Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001; Rodkin, 2001; Rodkin & Hodges, 2003).
School Factors

According to ecological theory, friends as well as family hold an important place in children’s microsystems. Children in the study were found to have committed much of the physical violence against other children so it should not be surprising that most of the physical violence happened at home or at school. Although parents can be more vigilant about sibling violence (Duncan, 2004) and the supervision of their children, teachers also need to be vigilant about the violence that could be happening in their schools, both in the classroom and playground. As with other countries a key location for physical violence and bullying in New Zealand appears to be the school playground (Sullivan, 2000b). Some of the children’s comments in this study (e.g., “If we had a teacher on the field I think there would be no wrestling and fighting”) are consistent with studies by Olweus (1991, 1993). Olweus found playground supervision to be a major factor in reducing the incidence of bullying. Rodkin and Hodges (2003) advise that teachers who get to know their students and the “peer ecologies” in which they operate are the most successful in reducing the incidence of bullying (p. 391).

The qualitative data illustrated the participants’ need for social connectedness. This view is consistent with other studies that reveal how the social dynamics of peer ecologies determine whether children feel a sense of belonging to the group or not (Karcher, 2004; Rodkin, 2001; Rodkin & Hodges, 2003). Groups are a natural part of school life and to be excluded from the peer group can be traumatic for children. In the present study, comments along the lines of “My friends don’t like me” were indicative of how such children felt excluded. Demaray and Malecki (2003) write of the importance of social support for both victims and bullies. As Boivin, Hymel, and Hodges (2001) have noted, “friendships provide contexts for learning social skills, for enhancing self-knowledge and self-esteem, for emotional and cognitive support and coping, as well as for practicing for later relationships” (p. 277).

In the present study two open-ended questions that aimed to explore children’s feelings about their school experiences were: “I like my school because ...”, and “School could be better for me if ...”. Almost all of the responses included statements about teachers and friends, for example, “All my friends are here and our teacher is real cool.” A similar statement, “School is a place where ...” was used by Nash and Harker (1998) to elicit the same types of responses. Both studies independently identified characteristics that made schools “good”. Another New Zealand study, conducted by the Adolescent Health Research Group, also reported students’ positive connection to school (Watson et al., 2003). Furthermore, a national longitudinal study of adolescent health in the United States found that when students feel connected to school they are less likely to engage in at-risk behaviours such as violence, substance abuse and early sexual activity (McNeely, Nonnemaker, & Blum, 2002).

Skiba et al. (2004) developed the Safe and Responsive Schools (SRS) Safe Schools Survey. Using similar questions to the present study in relation to children’s perceptions of school, the findings of Skiba and colleagues suggest that school connection (“I feel welcome when I am at school”) and climate may be more critical than delinquency or major safety items in predicting students’ perceptions of the overall safety of their school. Another study (Bugalski & Frydenberg, 2000) had similar findings to the present study in that effective coping skills require the willingness to seek guidance and support and are also contingent upon the receipt of constructive and effective supports from their “significant others” (p. 127). Cotta, Frydenberg, and Poole (2000, 2002) advocate implementing a coping skills programme to provide a framework that allows students to manage their stress and coping strategies both in the classroom and in their lives outside the classroom. Therefore key items for any programme should include helping the children to feel that they were not to blame for what happened and to provide them with successful support mechanisms to allow them to cope in such a way that aids their healing process in the aftermath of victimisation.

Future studies will need to determine whether the characteristics and ethos of schools can mitigate or exacerbate the impact of violence on children. Statistically significant but weak correlations did not allow conclusions to be drawn from the results of this study. Future studies would need to tease these factors apart because the results are of little practical significance. Overall children rated their schools and teachers positively, but as all students answered the questions about the characteristics of their school, regardless of victim status, it is not possible (from the results of this study) to determine the role that teachers play in lessening the impact of violence for their students who have experienced violence.

Other researchers have also asserted that the best thing to offer children at risk are teachers who care enough to form supportive, protective relationships with them so that they can serve as psychological buffers to help these children cope (Levin, 1994; Sautter, 1995; Wallach, 1993). Yet, despite the potential importance of teachers, in this study they were not usually the people to whom children disclosed their experiences of violence. Perhaps the majority of children reporting they had “a teacher to talk to” were children who had never been victimised and therefore found it easier to talk to their teacher about less personal information. A possible implication of this point is that schools need to consider effective ways to encourage children who have been victimised to tell their teachers in order to obtain their support. One way would be to capitalise on peer support. With both physical and emotional violence, the victim’s friends were the first line of support; therefore to ensure successful outcomes peer support may need to become a more formal arrangement within the school’s culture. This applies to bullying in schools as well. Bullying often goes unreported because of the perception that children have to learn to stand up for themselves. As previously stated, teachers often were not told about children’s victimisation, even though children rated their teachers highly on the 5-point Likert scale. An important implication of this study therefore, which is consistent with the findings in other studies, is that schools must develop a culture of “telling”. Children should understand that it is part of the school’s ethos (Olweus, 1993) that informing teachers of inappropriate and unacceptable behaviours is permissible, important, and a responsible form of behaviour because a whole school approach is necessary for successful intervention in reducing bullying (Eslea & Smith, 1998; Orpinas et al., 2003; Sullivan, 2000a; Tattum & Tattum, 1992).

Far more children reported feeling safe at school than unsafe; only 12% thought their schools were unsafe. What is not so clear is whether those who thought their school to be unsafe included those children who reported experiencing violence by adults at home. These results may be interpreted in two ways. First the children who were most affected by physical violence at home were more likely to rate their school as being very safe: none of these children reported being physically hurt by teachers at school. Second, the support they either received or did not receive at school from their teachers and peers could possibly determine how children rated their schools.

It is likely then that the collective culture and ethos of the school children attend has the potential to affect the incidence and impact of the violent events that happen in their lives. Certainly the children’s comments in this study are consistent with the findings of Howing et al. (1993) that what children need from schools is “a supportive environment where reasonable rules are fairly and consistently enforced, and where adults view crises as opportunities to model and teach effective coping skills” (p. 111). Indicative comments included: “I like the rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated”; “We have a nice teacher. He has the three Fs. They are firm, fair, friendly”; and “It is a nice learning environment and a friendly place. If I’m in trouble there is always someone there to help.” Similar perceptions of fair teachers were reported by the participants in the Adolescent Health Research Study (Watson et al., 2003).

A key finding of this study is that no relationships were found between school decile ranking and negative perceptions of school. However, much has been written about the relationship of violence to socioeconomic status (Slee, 2003) so a likely expectation would be that children attending low decile schools would experience more bullying and violence at school. Instead, the findings showed that children in the lower decile schools were more likely to report liking school, perceiving it as safe and having a trustworthy teacher to confide in. One explanation could be that in this study school decile rankings were used as a proxy for socioeconomic status. Decile is an imprecise measure because students within schools may vary on level of disadvantage. There may also have been a contrast effect when children came from poor homes. Some of the children’s comments supported this explanation. For example: “It gets me away from home and a break from my parents.” Nearly three quarters of the participants acknowledged there was ‘some’ to ‘a lot’ of bullying at their schools, thus verifying the high prevalence of bullying reported by New Zealand researchers. However, no relationship was found between schools with a high incidence of bullying and school decile ranking. Although children from low decile schools may have experienced or been exposed to more violence, analyses of the school characteristics data (e.g., positive ratings of teachers) perhaps demonstrate that by providing learning environments that are inclusive and supportive of all their students, schools may be able to counteract the individual factors that some students bring with them. Further research is needed.

There are some indications in the literature that the size of schools can affect the culture or climate of schools (Osher et al., 2004). Similarly, when multiple regressions were performed to determine children’s coping experiences on the impact of violence, the present study found that school size predicted impact on sexual violence. The impact of sexual violence on children was greater when they attended a small school. The reasons why are unclear. Possibly, children victimised by sexual abuse feel that people are more likely to know in a smaller school and prefer to feel more anonymous in a bigger school. Perhaps school size can affect school culture because it is harder to build a sense of community in large schools. To overcome this, Osher et al. (2004) suggest that larger schools should break their syndicates/departments into smaller units where it is easier for teachers to know the students and their families. Students also have more opportunities to find adults or students for support in larger schools.

Due to the nature of the data it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions as to whether the culture and characteristics of schools can mitigate and reduce the impact of violent events on children. From the children’s comments the qualitative data suggest that they can, but it is not possible to make this judgement, based on the quantitative data. This does not mean there is no relationship between the culture of schools and the effects of violence. Possibly teachers are a major protective factor in buffering children from the impact of violence but it cannot be confirmed from the results of this study.

A potential limitation of questionnaires is that they can provide misleading information and this was overcome in two ways. First, the participants needed to be given every opportunity to recall necessary information, and second, in case some participants lacked the language skills to understand the meaning of the questions, or to produce a decipherable response, procedures were set in place to support such children. For example, it was necessary to ensure that the reading level of the questionnaire for the study corresponded to the participants’ chronological age and was written in child-friendly language that was piloted before full implementation. It was also necessary to show all of the questionnaire items on overhead transparencies and to work through the questionnaire together as a class. Reading and pointing to the questions ensured that all the children could complete the questionnaire independently without requiring extra support, which would have compromised their confidentiality and anonymity. In addition the researcher was a trained teacher and therefore experienced in deciphering inaccurate spelling and grammatically incorrect sentence structures.

To elicit the meaning of violence for children, the use of child language in the definitions was intentional. However, the definition for sexual violence using such child language appears to have been imprecise. Having unwanted sexual touching and being asked to do unwanted sexual things covers a wide range of experiences. Grouping children’s experiences of minor non-contact sexual abuse alongside rape and sexual assault may distort the overall picture of the types of sexual violence.

The sample selection, while well designed, led to a small percentage of schools participating. The self-selection of the schools in the first stage of the selection process could raise issues about generalisability because of a biased selection. There is a possibility that the data may under-represent or overstate prevalence and incidence because principals were not expected to provide reasons for non-participation. Hence there is also no way of determining whether school principals were unwilling to participate because (1) they considered violence was, or was not, a problem for students attending their school, or (2) they perceived potential difficulties in gaining parental approval due to the sensitive nature of the topic. However, a relatively balanced and representative sample was obtained from the 28 schools that participated in the study and this was further enhanced by the passive consent procedure that facilitated a large sample of participating students.

Although the sample size was large (2,077 participants), the correlations were generally small and therefore of minimal practical significance. As expected, the number of participants reduced, depending on the type of victimisation experienced. The small amount of children who experienced certain types of violence is not a limitation in itself. However, the reduction of the sample from 2,077 to 192 (for the participants reporting direct experience of sexual violence) restricted the types of analyses able to be undertaken. More sophisticated types of data analyses such as structural equation modelling could be utilised in future studies to establish the directionality of the relationships between mediating forms of violence for the three forms of violence.
Further Research
The findings of this study provide new information on the prevalence, incidence and impact of violence on children and the factors that mitigate its effects. Future research will need to confirm these results if the study is to be used to guide policy development in this important area. Longitudinal data, collected at different times over several years, should provide a more robust indication of victimisation. Including school achievement data would be useful in terms of examining the relationship between children’s experiences of violence and the impact on academic outcomes. A longitudinal study would provide a more appropriate method for exploring causal relationships between victimisation and social-emotional consequences. Examining comparisons between children who have experienced violence, children who have witnessed violence, children who have experienced both direct and indirect violence, and children who appear to live in violence-free settings will add further to the understanding of the social-emotional and achievement-related consequences of violence.

It is hoped too that future research will explore the implications of these findings for prevention and intervention, including an examination of children’s coping strategies (for example, attributions) and protective factors. Further studies could examine the perpetrators of violence against children. Although it was not possible within the scope of the present study to explore the differential impacts, Morgan and Zedner (1992) found there does seem to be a difference in the effects on children who have been victims of incest, and those who have been sexually assaulted by non-family members. This notion is worth exploring in future studies. Exploring the possibility of differences between victimisation by family and non-family members for all three types of violence (physical, emotional, and sexual) is also worth pursuing in future studies. Some interesting findings emerged in relation to children’s perceptions about the characteristics of their schools. The characteristics differed across schools. Although not the main focus of the present study, the responses of the children identified this to be a potentially rich source of inquiry for future research. Results of this study did not elicit answers as to whether the culture and ethos of schools is a moderating factor against the effects of violence and so remains an unresolved issue.

Witnessing violence was more prevalent than experiencing direct violence and the prevalence of witnessing violence was significantly related to impact. The impact of witnessing physical and emotional violence was greater than the impact of violence directed at the child. Excepting direct sexual victimisation, violence involving adults had the most impact of all forms of violence. The study is consistent with international and New Zealand research in that exposure to both direct and indirect violence and abuse is likely to have a detrimental impact upon children (Atwool, 2000; Finkelhor et al., 2005; Ghate, 2000; Maxwell, 1994; Perry, 1997; Reiss et al., 1993). Possibly some children are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviours as a result of their violent experiences.

Discussion centred on how the participants reported the effects of their violent experiences and highlighted the special vulnerability of children in the face of adverse experiences. The majority of children either reported a few or a lot of experiences, probably because if they had only been exposed a few times the number would stand out and similarly children reporting a number of incidents would know they had experienced “a lot” of violence. Differences were found in the way children described their experiences, with little detail provided about the impact of sexual violence, as compared to children’s recounting of physical and emotional victimisations.

The present study is consistent with Finkelhor and Dziuba-Leatherman’s (1994b) grouping of child victimisation into three broad categories (pandemic, acute, and extraordinary) and the examples they gave for each category. For example, this study found that the pandemic victimisation affecting most children was sibling assault, followed by other children, and that acute victimisation affected a fractional but significant percentage in the form of physical abuse by adults. As one child said, “I get hidings [beatings] all the time.”

Contrary to expectation no meaningful relationships were found between children’s experiences of violence and the decile rating of their school, which suggests the differences in participating schools for this study were related to their characteristics as a social institution. It is likely that schools with positive school climates and ethos, even in disadvantaged areas, can have a helpful effect on students with the implication being that school cultures can create a buffer against violent and traumatic events for their students. Alternatively, individual actions or measures may combine to create a particular ethos or set of values, attitudes, and behaviours, which will become characteristic of the school as a whole. However, acknowledging that the culture of schools can mitigate and reduce the impact of violence on children was not borne out by the results of this study. Very few of the contextual variables in the present study were systematically associated with children’s experiences of violence. Therefore, further research is required to confirm or dispute Garmezy’s (1993) view that schools can be a major protective factor for students exposed to life’s adversities and conversely, in negative contexts, schools can also add to their cumulation of stressors.

The final chapter draws on the results of the study to offer recommendations for change that may help to mitigate and reduce the effects of violence on children.

CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION
This study extends understanding of children’s perceptions of their experiences of violence. A national survey of New Zealand children, aged 9 to 13 years, reported the nature and extent of their experiences of violence, both at home and at school. Twenty-eight randomly selected schools of various sizes, geographic areas, and socioeconomic neighbourhoods, provided a representative sample of 2,077 children.

The study explored the amount of physical, sexual, and emotional violence experienced by children within their main contexts (home and school) in relation to impact, as well as children’s perceptions of their school, their coping strategies, and the extent to which they used violence in their own interpersonal relationships. The study took into account the ethical considerations and philosophy underpinning research that involves children. The use of a passive consent procedure in this study, as a significant and innovative way to both enhance the opportunities for children to voice their experiences of violence, as well as a way to increase the participation rate of children in this study was reported. Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to express their views freely. This study was conducted in line with this United Nations Convention, and in so doing contributes to an understanding of how to conduct research in a manner that creates opportunities for children’s voices to be heard.

The study breaks new ground. First, the use of passive consent resulted in a large sample for a study of this nature. Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, guided the controversial ethical decision to adopt a passive consent procedure. The passive consent procedure was debated with the Massey University Ethics Committee. This Committee acknowledged the validity of enabling children to voice their perceptions of the nature, extent, and impact of their violent experiences. Second, the study presents new data for New Zealand on rates of prevalence and incidence. The study found high rates of violence directly experienced and witnessed by children in this country.

Implications

Children in the present study reported high rates of both direct and indirect violence. Children should feel safe in their homes, their communities, and in their schools. Emotional violence was the most prevalent form of both direct and indirect violence. For many children in New Zealand, the conclusion can also be drawn that bullying is part of their childhood. Furthermore, this form of emotional violence was found to have a negative impact on their lives. Children rated the impact of emotional violence higher than physical violence, which suggests that the negative effect of emotional or psychological abuse has implications for schools in relation to bullying.

The study found that all violence involving adults had the greatest impact. This finding serves as a salutary reminder that children should not placed in situations where they witness arguments and fights between adults. Witnessing violence involving adults also has more impact on children than violence directed at them. This finding highlights, in particular, the adverse effect of family violence. Although the study found that sexual violence was less prevalent than physical and emotional violence, this form of violence was rated by most of the children who had experienced sexual violence as having the most profound affect. The incidence rates of sexual abuse raised the possibility that for some children the abuse was ongoing at the time of data collection, and perpetrated by people they knew.

Policies and programmes that could safeguard children are often based on statistical data that imply a particular need or reason to be concerned about the safety of children. But the number of children involved in family and domestic violence is masked, as it is seldom recorded statistically and, if reported, it is usually only recorded in terms of broader family incidences. More accurate data (based on the findings of this study) that reflect the prevalence of children affected by violence could mean that positive government policies and programmes would be implemented to reduce children’s experiences of violence. The present study addresses these issues of prevalence and incidence for violence against children and provides a valid base from which parents, schools, communities, professional and government agencies can work together to educate, make decisions about ways to protect children, and raise awareness of the impact of violence on children.

The level of children’s exposure to violence in this country is relatively high. While the study revealed high prevalence and incidence rates, contextual factors often associated with violence were found to be of minimal practical importance in this study. The present study revealed, however, that some of the participating children who experienced violence did not feel they had been well supported by adults. Children, who were sexually victimised, often chose not to disclose. Friends were found to be the first line of support for children who did disclose their victimisation. Schools, therefore, may need to include a more formalised arrangement of peer support. By providing an empathetic and supportive environment, however, children may be more likely to seek support from adults instead of mainly confiding in their friends.

There is an immediate need for teachers and schools to confront the pervasive issues of bullying in New Zealand schools. Anti-bullying efforts will also be important for providing safe learning environments. Furthermore, as likely witnesses of bullying, peers should also be taught to voice their disapproval and to intervene. Findings indicate that negative peer interactions can worsen the impact of bullying, so children must be taught to respond appropriately. Schools may be able to intervene effectively to reduce violence, if they acknowledge the problem and adopt school-wide philosophies.

While these suggestions make a difference in the lives of children, the study does not provide all of the answers to reducing and mitigating the effects of violence. There are no simple solutions; rather multifaceted solutions are required. Government bans on spousal and parental violence; reductions in the portrayal of media violence; providing safe schools with supportive cultures; adult and child education programmes as well as all the other recommendations are not in and of themselves enough to significantly reduce family violence. Nor can schools and the people who care for children be responsible for all of the ills of society. The challenge now is for the findings of the present research study to inform the decision-making of policy makers, which is not easy with research involving children. Children have a different perspective and experience life differently from adults. This difference does not negate the validity of their perspectives and experiences. As Jamison and Gilbert (2000) stated:

The problem for policy makers is how to understand and give recognition to children’s experience of life – including family, school, and other aspects of public life that have an impact on them. This requires a commitment to involving children, learning about ways to involve them, and recognising both real and perceived barriers to their active participation in policy and decision-making processes. (p. 185)

In terms of research design, this study takes a critical stance to the existing ethical and methodological considerations and philosophies underpinning research that involves children. The children who participated in this study demonstrated their competence to express the ways in which violence has affected them. One area that children have had little voice in until now is about the violent events they experience. Children should be considered “the experts” of their own information because they hold the most valid perception of their experiences. To seek better solutions, prevention and intervention decisions should be based on children’s perspectives.

Miljeteig (2000) suggested that to establish a culture for listening to children it may be more appropriate to promote an “adult ears” movement instead of the more common “children’s voices” movement (p. 159). The decision to listen and act on the perspectives of children ultimately rests with adults but the act of listening and taking seriously what children have to say will be a big step forward in supporting children who have experienced violence. When children are given a voice they are more than capable of addressing issues that adults find controversial. Unsolicited comments from the children who participated in the survey have vindicated the decision made by Massey University’s Ethics Committee to allow children’s rights to take priority over parental rights. A number of the children expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to participate in the study (e.g., “I really wanted to get some stuff out. Cool survey”). Although they may not have known the difference between a test, programme or questionnaire, these participants clearly engaged in the task of completing the questionnaire (“This was a really good test and thank you for coming to my school, and I really thought about things”; “Thanks for letting me do this. Sometimes it made me sad but thank you”). Some even commented on the benefits of participating (“I think this programme is a neat idea. Good luck”). All of these comments support the value of children having a voice about important issues in their lives. Some children found the questions difficult, but they welcomed and took seriously the opportunity to talk about the violence in their lives.

Four inter-related key issues regarding research with children were addressed in this study. First, is a ‘deficit discourse model’ of children that affects consent procedures; second, is the issue of active versus passive consent procedures; third, is the ‘rights of children to speak on matters that concern them’; and fourth is the effect consent procedures have on our ability to incorporate children’s perspectives that can better inform our understanding of childhood and the institutions, services, programmes, and policies that are meant to serve these young citizens.

The results acknowledge and support the controversial ethical decision to adopt a passive consent procedure and demonstrate the children’s competence to understand the research requirements and their ability to rationally express the ways in which violence has affected their lives. Sanctioned by the University Ethics Committee, the passive consent procedure employed in this study allowed more children to report their experiences of violence and this procedure is recommended for future studies involving children. The Ethics Committee carefully weighed and gave credence to the issue of children’s rights to protection and acknowledged and confirmed Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that grants children the right to speak on matters that concern them. Active consent could have compromised both of these rights. Ethical policies and procedures will be more effective if they incorporate research that takes account of and acknowledges the validity of children’s perspectives in the context of their own experiences, particularly when those findings are incorporated into environments that affect children.

While all children’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours are unique; they are also highly influenced by the general characteristics of their age and level of development. There are certain characteristics of children’s thinking that make it look quite different from mature adult thought and this is reflected in how they described their experiences of violence in this study and underscores the importance of ensuring that children’s voices are heard. Moreover, in line with Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory the data obtained from the children in this study support the view that it is possible to explore children’s self-perceptions of violence. Social cognitive theory offers an explanation of how children’s perceptions contribute to the impact of violence because the meanings children take from their experiences, even if they have shared the same experience with others, will be different (Atwool, 2000; Levin, 1994). In this study the participating children provided insightful statements about their experiences and demonstrate that children are capable of speaking out on issues that affect them. One 12-year-old participant expressed her concern about “people underestimating us, not imagining what we can do, think we aren’t capable, thinking we can’t, too young etc.”

The African proverb that it takes a village to raise a child is relevant to the ecological conceptual framework of this study. According to Osher and colleagues (2004) “ecological explanations have not had a powerful impact on the mental maps of educators and policy makers” (p. 15). Perhaps this is changing. By promoting a whole child approach the New Zealand Government’s Agenda for Children is adopting a “key settings model” (p. 14) and encouraging adults to “look at children in all their contexts, when working with them and when developing policies and services for them” (Ministry of Social Development, 2002, p. 8).

What is this telling us then? While every effort should be made in the classroom to help children cope, it is also important to address the victimisation of children, from their perspective, in order to effect real change. Valuing children’s perspectives and recognising that they hold the most valid perception of their experiences will ensure that the changes are meaningful to the children who have experienced violence. Finally, adults must assume responsibility to reduce our children’s exposure to violence because New Zealand cannot afford the devastating effects of failing to protect its children. Society’s goal must be to create a generation of children who are competent and capable of speaking up for themselves, of making decisions and judgements on issues that concern them, and of knowing when they need help and how to get it.

This study differs from many other studies in that it explores children’s perceptions of their violent experiences. Much has been written about children’s experiences of violent and traumatic events from the viewpoint of adults, but fewer studies have researched this topic from the perspectives of children. The study gained valuable insight into children’s experiences through methodological procedures that encapsulate children’s perspectives about the nature and extent of violent events in their lives. The study investigated the meanings that children attach to their experiences because as argued by Anderson et al. (1994) “it is only through trying to understand young people’s views of their experiences as victims and witnesses that we can confront the problem in a way that is meaningful and acceptable to them” (p. 66). Conclusions are that effective development of policy and provision should be based on data that reflects children’s perceptions of the violence in the context of their own lives.
REFERENCES
Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa (ACYA). (2003, March). Children and Youth in Aotearoa 2003. The second non-governmental organisations’ report from Aotearoa New Zealand to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Auckland: Author. Retrieved from http://www.acya.org.nz

Adair, V. (1999). No bullies at this school: Creating safe schools. Childrenz Issues, Journal of the Children’s Issues Centre, 3(1), 32-37.

Adair, V. A., Dixon, R. S., Moore, D. W., & Sutherland, C. M. (2000). Ask your mother not to make yummy sandwiches: Bullying in New Zealand secondary schools. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 35(2), 207-221.

Ahmad, Y., Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1991). A survey service for schools on bully/victim problems. In P. K. Smith, & D. A. Thomson (Eds.), Practical approaches to bullying (pp. 103-111). London: David Fulton.

Ainscow, M., & Moss, S. (2002, September). Exploring the use of action research to develop inclusive practices in urban schools. Paper presented at the British Education Research Association (BERA) Conference, Exeter, UK.

Alanen, L. (2001). Explorations in generational analysis. In L. Alanen, & B. Mayall (Eds.), Conceptualizing child-adult relations (pp. 11-22). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Alderson, P., & Montgomery, J. (1996, April). What about me? Are children competent to decide on their own treatment, regardless of what their parents think? Health Services Journal, 22-24.

Amaya-Jackson, L., Socolar, R. R. S., Hunter, W., Runyan, D. K., & Colindres, R. (2000). Directly questioning children and adolescents about maltreatment: A review of survey measures used. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(7), 725-759.

American Office of Child Abuse and Neglect (OCAN). (2000). What is child maltreatment? Retrieved from http://www.mhsqic.org/DSQIC/OCAN/ts/ho1_5.htm

Anderman, C., Cheadle, A., Curry, S., & Diehr, P. (1995). Selection bias related to parental consent in school-based survey research. Evaluation Review, 19(6), 663-674.

Anderson, S., Kinsey, R., Loader, I., & Smith, C. (1994). Cautionary tales. Young people, crime and policing in Edinburgh. Aldershot: Avebury.

Arnold, J. (2005). Empathetic intelligence. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Atlas, R., & Pepler, D. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 92(2), 86-99.

Atwool, N. (2000). Children who have been exposed to risk and trauma. In A. B. Smith, N. J. Taylor, & M. M. Gollop (Eds.), Children’s voice. Research, policy and practice (pp. 56-71). Auckland: Pearson Education New Zealand.

Baldry, A. C. (2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27(7), 713-732.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.

Barwick, H., & Gray, A. (2001). Analysis of submissions by children and young people to the Agenda for Children: Children’s Discussion Pack. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development. Also available from www.msd.govt.nz (Under Agenda for Children).

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bat-Zion, N., & Levy-Shiff, R. (1993). Children in war: Stress and coping reactions under the threat of scud missile attacks and the effect of proximity. In L. A. Leavitt, & N. A. Fox (Eds.), The psychological effects of war and violence on children (pp.143-162). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bear, T., Schenk, S., & Buckner, L. (1993). Supporting victims of child abuse. Educational Leadership, 31, 42-47.

Belsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment, an ecological integration. American Psychologist, 35(4), 320-355.

Besag, V. E. (1989). Bullies and victims in schools: A guide to understanding and management. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Blaiklock, A. J., Kiro, C. A., Belgrave, M., Low, W., Davenport, E., & Hassell, I. B. (2002). When the invisible hand rocks the cradle: New Zealand children in a time of change. Innocenti Working Paper, No.93. Florence, Italy: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Hodges, E.V.E. (2001). Toward a process view of peer rejection and harassment. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school. The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 265-289). New York: The Guilford Press.

Bond, L., Carlin, J.B., Thomas, L., Rubin, K., & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British Medical Journal, 323(7311), 480-489.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion. Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education (CSIE).

Boulton, M., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully/victim problems among middle-school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 315-329.

Briere, J., & Elliot, D.M. (1994). Immediate and long-term impacts of child sexual abuse. The Future of Children, 4(2), 54-69.

Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1993). Childhood sexual abuse: Long-term sequelae and implication for psychological assessment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(3), 312-330.

Briggs, F. (2002). To what extent can ‘Keeping Ourselves Safe’ protect children? Wellington: New Zealand Police.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: research perspectives. Developmental Pyschology, 22, 723-742.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187-249). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Browne, J., & Carroll-Lind, J. (2006). Relational aggression between primary school girls. Kairaranga. Weaving Educational Threads, Weaving Educational Practice, 7(1), 20-29.

Bugalski, K., & Frydenberg, E (2000). Promoting effective coping in adolescents ‘at risk’ for depression. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 10(1),

111-132.

Buhs, E. S., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as an antecedent of young children’s school adjustment: An examination of mediating processes. Developmental Pyschology, 57(4), 550-560.

Carlson, E. B. (2000). A conceptual framework for the impact of traumatic experiences. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 1(1), 4-28.

Carney, J. V. (2005). Factor structure of the bullying situations identification (BSI) instrument. Journal of School Violence, 4(3), 77-91.

Carroll-Lind, J. (2002). The ‘broomstick incident.’ Bullying or peer pressure? Education Today, 4, 20-21.

Carroll-Lind, J., Chapman, J., Gregory, J., & Maxwell, G. (2006). The key to the gatekeepers: Addressing the ethical issues surrounding the rights of children to speak on issues that concern them. Child Abuse and Neglect, The International Journal, 30, 979-989.

Carroll-Lind, J., & Kearney, A. (2004). Bullying: What do students say? Kairaranga, Weaving Educational Threads, Weaving Educational Practice, 5(2), 19-24.

Carroll-Lind, J., & Lind, P. (2004). “I feel I belong here”. The culture and ethos of inclusive schools. Set: Research Information For Teachers, 3(3), 26-30.

Child, Youth and Family (2001). An interagency guide to breaking the cycle. Let’s stop child abuse together. Wellington: Author.

Child, Youth and Family (2006). Children at increased risk from death and maltreatment and strategies for prevention. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development. Retrieved from http://www.cyf.govt.nz/text/Reports.htm

Children’s Commissioner & UNICEF. (2004, Nov). Protecting children from abuse and neglect. Wellington: Children’s Commissioner and UNICEF.

Christensen, P., & James, A. (2000). Researching children and childhood: Cultures of communication. In P. Christensen, & A. James (Ed.), Research with children: perspectives and practices (pp. 1-8). London: Falmer Press.

Church, J. (2003). The definition, diagnosis and treatment of children and youth with severe behaviour difficulties: Report to the Ministry of Education. Christchurch: Education Dept, University of Canterbury. Also available from http.//www.minedu.govt.nz

Cicchetti, D. (1989). How research on child maltreatment has informed the study of child development: Perspectives from developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti, & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment. Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 377-432). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cicchetti, D., & Lynch, M. (1993). Toward an ecological/transactional model of community violence and maltreatment: Consequences for children’s development. In D. Reiss, J. Richters, M. Radke-Yarrow, & D. Scharff (Eds.), Children and violence (pp. 96-118). New York: The Guilford Press.

Cicchetti, D., Toth, S. L., & Lynch, M. (1993). The developmental sequelae of child maltreatment: Implications for war-related trauma. In L. A. Leavitt, & N. A. Fox (Eds.), The psychological effects of war and violence on children (pp. 41-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Clark, J. A. (2001). Against the parental right to use corporal punishment to discipline children: Implications for early childhood and primary school teachers. New Zealand Research in Early Childhood Education, 4, 177-188.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5^th ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Coie, J. D., Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, J. D., Asarnow, J. R., Markman, H. J., Ramey, S. L., Shure, M. B., & Long, B. (1993). The science of prevention. A conceptual framework and some directions for a national research program. American Psychologist, 48(10), 1013-1022.

Cole, P., & Chan, L. (1990). Methods and strategies for special education. Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Coleman, P. K., & Byrd, C. P. (2003). Interpersonal correlates of peer victimization among young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(4), 301-314.

Colmar Brunton. (1995, June). Breaking the Cycle. Quantitative Report. Wellington: Author.

Cornell, D. G., & Brockenbrough, K. (2004). Identification of bullies and victims: A comparison of methods. In M. Furlong, G. Morrison, R. Skiba, & D. G. Cornell (Eds.), Issues in school violence research (pp. 63-87). New York: The Haworth Press.

Cornille, T. A., Boroto, D. R., Barnes, M. F., & Hall, P. K. (1996). Dealing with family distress in schools. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 435-445.

Cotta, A., Frydenberg, E., & Poole, C. (2000). Coping skills for adolescents at school. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 17(2), 103-106.

Cotta, A., Frydenberg, E., & Poole, C. (2002, April.). Coping skills training for adolescents at school. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.

Coyne, J.C., & Racioppo, M. W. (2000, June). Never the twain shall meet? Closing the gap between coping research and clinical intervention research. American Psychologist, 55(6), 655-664.

Cramer, P. (2000). Defense mechanisms in psychology today: Further processes for adaptation. American Psychologist, 55, 637-646.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710-722.

Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Relational and physical victimization within friendships: Nobody told me there’d be friends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(6), 599-607.

Crick, N. R., Nelson, D.A., Morales, J., Cullerton-Sen, C., Casas, J. F., & Hickman, S. E. (2001). Relational victimization in childhood and adolescence. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school. The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 196-214). New York: The Guilford Press.

Crowley, A. (1992). Whose life is it anyway? In C. Jenks (Ed.), The sociology of childhood. Essential readings. London: Gregg Revivals.

Dalin, P. (1993). Changing the school culture. London: Cassell.

Darlow, N. (2005). Schools and the right to discipline. Wellington: Community Law Centre.

Dawes Knight, E., Runyan, D. K., Dubowitz, H., Brandford, C., Kotch, J., Litrownik, A., & Hunter, W. (2000). Methodological and ethical challenges associated with child self-report of maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(7), 760-775.

Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 471-489.

Department of Social Welfare. (1997). Assessments of Reports to NZCYPS. Wellington: Government.

Devine, J., & Lawson, H. A. (2003). The complexity of school violence: Commentary from the US. In P. Smith (Ed.), Violence in schools: the response from Europe. (pp. 333-350). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Dobbs, T. (2005). Insights: Children and young people speak out about family discipline. Wellington: Save the Children New Zealand.

Dobbs, T., & Duncan, J. (2004). Children’s perspectives on physical discipline: A New Zealand example. Child Care in Practice, 10(4), 367-379.

Dobbs, T., Smith, A. B., & Taylor, N. (2006). ‘No, we don’t get a say, children just suffer the consequences’: Children talk about family discipline. International Journal of Children’s Rights. 14(2), 137-156.

Dockrell, J., Lewis, A., & Lindsay, G. (2000). Researching children’s perspectives: A psychological dimension. In A. Lewis, & G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching children’s perspectives (pp. 46-58). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Doolan M. (2004). Child death by homicide: An examination of incidence in New Zealand: 1991-2000. Te Awatea Review, 2(1), 7–10.

Duncan, R. D. (2004). The impact of family relationships on school bullies and victims. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American Schools. A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 227-244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Durrant, J. (2004, June). Whose body is it anyway? Physical punishment, children’s rights, and parental responsibility. Paper presented at the National Seminar, “Stop it, it hurts me”: Research and perspectives on the physical punishment of children, Wellington, New Zealand.

Edleson, J. L. (1999). Children’s witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 18-32.

Education and Science Committee. (1995). Inquiry into children in education at risk through truancy and behavioural problems. Wellington: New Zealand House of Representatives.

Education Review Office. (1998). Good schools, poor schools. Number 4. Wellington: Government.

Education Review Office. (2000, Autumn). Safe students in safe schools. Number 2. Wellington: Government.

Erdelyi, M. H. (2001, September). Defense processes can be conscious or unconscious. American Psychologist, 56(9), 761-762.

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365-383.

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in American Schools. A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fancourt, R. (1997). Brain development in young children: The implications for social policy. Children’s Agenda, 1, 2-3.

Feindler, E. L., & Becker, J. V. (1994). Interventions in family violence involving children and adolescents. In L. D. Eron, J. H. Gentry, & P. Schlegel (Eds.), Reason to hope: A psychosocial perspective on violence and youth (pp. 405-429). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Fergusson, D. M. (1998). The Christchurch health and development study: An overview and some key findings. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 10, 154-176.

Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2003). Resilience to childhood adversity: Results of a 21 year study. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 130-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fielding, M. (2004, April). Transformative approaches to student voice: Theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 295-311.

Finkelhor, D. (1995). The victimization of children: A developmental perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65(2), 177-193.

Finkelhor, D., & Dziuba-Leatherman, J. (1994a). Victimization of children. American Psychologist, 19(3), 173-183.

Finkelhor, D., & Dziuba-Leatherman, J. (1994b). Children as victims of violence. A national survey. Paediatrics, 84 (4), 413-420.

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. L. (2005). The victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment, 10(1), 5-25.

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist, 55(6), 647-654.

Friedlander, B. Z. (1993). Community violence, children’s development, and mass media: In pursuit of new insights, new goals, and new strategies. In D. Reiss, J. E. Richters, M. Radke-Yarrow, & D. Scharff (Eds.), Children and violence (pp. 66-82). New York: Guilford Press.

Furlong, M. J., Morrison, G. M., Chung, A., Bates, M., & Morrison, R. I. (1997). School violence: Children’s needs. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Furlong, M. J., Morrison, G. M., Cornell, D. G., & Skiba, R. (2004). Methodological and measurement issues in school violence research: Moving beyond the social problem era. In M. Furlong, G. Morrison, R. Skiba, & D. Cornell (Eds.), Issues in school violence research (pp. 5-12). New York: The Haworth Press.

Furlong, M. J., Sharma, B., & Rhee, S. (2000). Defining school violence victim subtypes: A step toward adapting prevention and intervention programs to match student needs. In D. Singh, & C. B. Aspy (Eds.), Violence in American schools: A practical guide for counsellors (pp. 67-88). Washington, DC: American Counseling Association.

Gaffney, M., Higgins, N., McCormack, J., & Taylor, N. (2004). Developing a more positive school culture to address bullying and improve school relationships: case studies from two primary schools and one intermediate school. A report for the Ministry of Social Development. Dunedin: Children’s Issues Centre, Otago University.

Garbarino, J. (2001). An ecological perspective on the effects of violence on children. Journal of Community Psychology, 29(3), 361-378.

Garbarino, J. (with Robert Abramowitz). (1992). Children and families in the social environment (2^nd ed.). New York: Aldine.

Garbarino, J., Dubrow, N., Kostelny, K., & Pardno, C. (1992). Children in danger: Coping with the effects of community violence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Geffner, R. A., Loring, M., & Young, M. S. (Eds.). (2001). Bullying behaviour: Current issues, research, and interventions. New York: The Haworth Maltreatment & Trauma Press. Co-published simultaneously as Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2/3).

Ghate, D. (2000). Family violence and violence against children. Children and Society, 14, 395-403.

Gilbert, L. (1998). United Nations Convention on the rights of the child. Report on the Article 42 consultation project. An occasional policy paper, Ministry of Youth Affairs, & Office of the Commissioner for Children. Wellington: Ministry of Youth Affairs.

Glynn, T., & Berryman, M. (2005). Understanding and responding to students’ behaviour difficulties. In D. Fraser, R. Moltzen, & K. Ryba (Eds.), Learners with special needs in Aotearoa New Zealand (3^rd ed.) (pp. 294-315). Southbank, Vic: Thomson Dunmore Press.

Gregory, J., Gregory, R., & Carroll-Lind, J. (2001). The wisdom of children-in-context. International Journal of Anthropology, 16(2-3), 65-76.

Greig, A., & Taylor, J. (1999). Doing research with children. London: SAGE.

Grossman, H. (2004). Classroom behavior management for diverse and inclusive schools (3^rd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Groves, B. M. (1997). Growing up in a violent world: The impact of family and community violence on young children and their families. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17(1), 74-111.

Groves, B. M. (2002). Children who see too much: Lessons from the child witness to violence project. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hallet, C., Murray, C., & Punch, S. (2003). Young people and welfare. Negotiating pathways. In C. Hallett, & A. Prout (Eds.), Hearing the voices of children. Social policy for a new century (pp. 123-138). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Hallett, C., & Prout, A. (Ed.). (2003). Hearing the voices of children. Social policy for a new century. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Hamby, S. L., & Finkelhor, D. (2004). The Comprehensive Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire. Durham: University of New Hampshire.

Hancock, J., & Trainor, C. (2004). Ensuring consistency with the Education Act 1989: In a child’s best interest. Childrenz Issues, 8(1), 35-49.

Hanson, M. J., & Carta, J. J. (1996). Addressing the challenges of families with multiple risks. Exceptional Children, 62(3), 201-212.

Hartless, J. M., Ditton, J., Nair, G., & Phillips, S. (1995). More sinned against than sinning. A study of young teenagers’ experience of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 35(1), 114-133.

Harvey, S. T., & Evans, I. M. (2003). Understanding the emotional environment of the classroom. In D. Fraser, & R. Openshaw (Eds.), Informing our practice (pp. 182-195). Palmerston North, NZ: Kanuka Grove Press.

Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. L., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W., & Cothern, L. (2000). Predictors of youth violence. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. New York: The Haworth Reference Press.

Hayden, A. (2001). Restorative conferencing manual of Aotearoa New Zealand. Wellington: Department for Courts.

Henaghan, M. (2005). Care of children. Wellington, NZ: LexisNexis.

Hiatt, S. W., Miyoshi, T. J., Fryer, G. E., Miyoshi, P. K., & Krugman, R. D. (1998). World perspectives on child abuse: The third international resource book. Denver, CO: University of Colorado School of Medicine, Elsevier Science.

Hilton-Jones, C. (1994). Eliminating violence: Managing anger. A school and community violence prevention programme. Manakau City, NZ: Special Education Service.

Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-610.

Holt, M. K., & Keyes, M. A. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes toward bullying. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American Schools. A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 121-139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hood, S., Kelley, P., & Mayall, B. (1996). Children as research subjects: A risky enterprise. Children and Society, 10, 117-128.

Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13, 5-16.

Howing, P. T., Wodarski, J. S., Kurtz, P. D., & Gaudin, J. M. (Eds.). (1993). Maltreatment and the school age child: Developmental outcomes and system issues. New York: The Haworth Press.

Hurley, D. J., & Jaffe, P. (1990). Children’s observations of violence: ii: Clinical implications for children’s mental health professionals. Canadian Journal Psychiatry, 35(6), 471-476.

Hyman, I. A. (1997). School discipline and school violence. The teacher variance approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Jaffe, P. G., Hurley, D. J., & Wolfe D. (1990). Children’s observations of violence:
i: Critical issues in child development and intervention planning. Canadian Journal Psychiatry, 35(6), 466-470.

James, B. (2005). Children with complex problems. Helping children with developmental injuries caused by horrible experiences. One day workshop,

James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood (2^nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.

Jamison, A., & Gilbert, L. (2000). Facilitating children’s voices in the community and government. In A. B. Smith, N. J. Taylor, & M. M. Gollop (Eds.), Children’s voices: Research, policy and practice (pp. 181-201). Auckland, NZ: Pearson Education.

Jeffrey, L. R., Miller, D., & Linn, M. (2001). Middle school bullying as a context for the development of passive observers to the victimization of others. In R. A. Geffner, M. Loring, & C. Young (Ed.), Bullying behaviour. Current issues, research and interventions. New York: The Haworth Maltreatment & Trauma Press.

Jenks, C. (2005). Childhood (2^nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Jones, J. W. (1989). Personality and epistemology: Cognitive social learning theory as a philosophy of science. Zygon, 24(1), 23-38.

Kane, R. G., & Mallon, M. (2006). Perceptions of teachers and teaching. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Karcher, M. J. (2004). Connectedness and school violence: A framework for developmental interventions. In E. R. Gerler, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of school violence (pp. 7-39). Birmingham, New York: The Haworth Reference Press.

Kazdin, A. E. (1994). Interventions for aggressive and antisocial children. In L. D. Eron, J. H. Gentry, & P. Schlegal (Eds.), Reason to Hope. A Psychosocial Perspective on Violence and Youth (pp. 341-382). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kaufman, J., & Zigler, E. (1989). The intergenerational transmission of child abuse. In D. Cicchetti, & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment. Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 129-153). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kearney, A. (1993). A study of the nature and extent of bullying in primary, intermediate and secondary schools. Unpublished manuscript. Palmerston North: Palmerston North College of Education.

Keenan, M. (1995). A Study of Students’ and Staff’s Perceptions of the Nature and Extent of Bullying at a Provincial Secondary School. Unpublished manuscript.

Kelly, G. (1998, September). Children on Childhood. The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Paper presented at the IPSCAN Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.

Kelsey, J. (1995). The New Zealand Experiment. A world model for structural adjustment? Auckland, NZ: Auckland University Press.

King, N. M. P., & Churchill, L. R. (2000). Ethical principles guiding research on child and adolescent subjects. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(7), 710-724.

Kiro, C. (2004, June). Children’s rights and physical punishment in Aotearoa New Zealand. Paper presented at the National Seminar, “Stop it, it hurts me”: Research and perspectives on the physical punishment of children. Wellington, New Zealand.

Kochenderfer Ladd, B., & Ladd, G.W. (2001). Variations in peer victimization. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp. 25-48). New York: The Guilford Press.

Krauss, H. H. (2005). Conceptualizing violence. In F. L. Denmark, H. H. Krauss, R. W. Wesner, E. Midlarsky, & U. P. Gielen (Eds.), Violence in schools. Cross-national and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 11-35). New York: Springer.

Lansdown, G. (1994). Children’s rights. In B. Mayall (Ed.), Children’s childhoods: Observed and experienced (pp. 33-44). London: Falmer Press.

Lapsley, H. (1993). The measurement of family violence: A critical review of the literature. Research Report Series, No. 16. Wellington, New Zealand: Social Policy Agency, Department of Social Welfare.

Lashlie, C. (2002). The journey to prison. Who goes and why. Auckland: HarperCollins.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lazarus, R. S. (2000, June). Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist, 55(6), 665-673.

Leavitt, L. A. &. Fox, N. A. (Eds.). (1993). The psychological effects of war and violence on children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lehmann, P. (1997). The development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in a sample of child witnesses to mother assault. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 241-257.

Levin, D. E. (1994). Teaching young children in violent times: Building a peaceable classroom. Cambridge, MA: Educators for Social Responsibility.

Lewis, A. (2004). Doing research with children and young people: An introduction. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett, & C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp. 1-11). London: SAGE.

Lewis, A., & Lindsay, G. (Eds.). (2000). Researching children’s perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Lewis, D. O., Mallouh, C., & Webb, V. (1989). Child abuse, delinquency, and violent criminality. In D. Cicchetti, & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment. Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 707-722). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lightner, R. M., Bollmer, J. M., Harris, M. J., Milich, R., & Scambler, D. J. (2000). What do you say to teasers? Parent and child evaluations of responses to teasing. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(4), 403-427.

Lind, J., & Maxwell, G. M. (1996). Children’s experiences of violence at school. Children, 20, 10-12.

Lloyd-Smith, M., & Tarr, J. (2000). Researching children’s perspectives: A sociological dimension. In A. Lewis, & G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching children’s perspectives (pp. 59-70). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Lorion, R. P., & Saltzman, W. (1993). Children’s exposure to community violence: Following a path from concern to research to action. In D. Reiss, J. Richters, M. Radke-Yarrow, & D. Scharff (Eds.), Children and violence (pp. 55-65). New York: The Guilford Press.

Lowenthal, B. (2001). Abuse and neglect. The educator’s guide to the identification and prevention of child maltreatment. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Lyle, J. (2001). Children’s voice, children’s views and wishes and the ‘best interests’ of the child: Listening to the voices of children in care. In Children’s Issues Centre (Ed.), 2001 Collected Articles. Dunedin: Children’s Issues Centre, Otago University.

Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children’s relationships with adults and peers: An examination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 81-99.

Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Links between community violence and the family system: Evidence from children’s feelings of relatedness and perceptions of parent behavior. Family Process, 41(3), 519-532.

Maharaj, A. S., Tie, W., & Ryba, K. (2000). Deconstructing bullying in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Disclosing its liberal and colonial connections. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 35(1), 9-23.

Mason, J., & Falloon, J. (2001). Some Sydney children define abuse: Implications for agency in childhood. In L. Alanen, & B. Mayall (Eds.), Conceptualizing child-adult relations (pp. 99-113). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic. Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238.

Mason, S. P., & Cohen, C. P. (2001). Children’s rights in education. In S. Hart, C. P. Cohen, M. F. Erickson, & M. Flekkoy (Eds.), Children’s rights in education (pp. 15-36). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Maung, N. A. (1995). Young people, victimization and the police: British Crime survey findings on experiences and attitudes of 12 to 15 year olds. Home Office Research Study 140. London, HMSO.

Maxwell, G. M. (1994). Children and family violence: The unnoticed victims. Occasional Paper No. 3. Wellington: Office of the Commissioner for Children.

Maxwell, G. M. (2005, October). The defining features of a restorative society. Paper presented at the “Towards a Restorative Society” Seminar, Wellington.

Maxwell, G., & Carroll-Lind, J. (1996). Children’s experiences of violence. Wellington: Office of the Commissioner for Children.

Maxwell, G., & Carroll-Lind, J. (1997a). The impact of bullying on children. Occasional Paper No. 6. Wellington: Office of the Commissioner for Children.

Maxwell, G., & Carroll-Lind, J. (1997b). Children’s experiences as witnesses of violence. Children, 22, 12-14.

Maxwell, G., & Carroll-Lind, J. (1998). Distorted childhoods: The meaning of violence for children. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 10, 177-189.

Maxwell, G., Robertson, J., Thom, A., & Walker, B. (1995). Researching care and protection. Wellington: Office of the Commissioner for Children and Social Policy Agency.

Mayall, B. (Ed.). (1994). Children’s childhoods: Observed and experienced. London: Falmer Press.

Mayall, B. (2000). Foreword. In A. B. Smith, N. J. Taylor, & M. M. Gollop (Eds.), Children’s voices (pp. vii-viii). Auckland: Pearson Education New Zealand.

Mayall, B. (2001a). Introduction. In L. Alanen, & B. Mayall (Eds.), Conceptualizing child-adult relations (pp. 1-11). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Mayall, B. (2001b). Understanding childhoods: A London study. In L. Alanen, & B. Mayall (Eds.), Conceptualizing child-adult relations (pp. 114-128). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a sociology of childhood: Thinking from children’s lives. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.

McMillan, B. W. (1990). An ecological perspective on individual human development. Early Child Development and Care, 55, 33-42.

McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of School Health, 72(4), 138-46.

Melton, G. B. (1992). The law is a good thing (Psychology is too): Human rights in psychological jurisprudence. Law and Human behaviour, 16, 381-398.

Melton, G. B., & Kaufman, N. H. (1997). Monitoring of children’s rights. In A. B.-A. H. Wintersberger (Ed.), Monitoring and measuring the state of children: Beyond survival. Eurosocial Report No. 62 (pp. 81-88). Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.

Melzak, S. (1997). The emotional impact of violence upon children. In V. Varma (Ed.), Violence in children and adolescents (pp. 2-21). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Miljeteig, P. (2000). Children’s democratic rights: Are we ready? What we can learn from young workers. In A. B. Smith, M. Gollop, K. Marshall, & K. Nairn (Eds.), Advocating for children: International perspectives on human rights (pp. 159-175). Dunedin: University of Otago Press.

Ministry of Education. (1998). 1997 TFEA survey for 1998 TFEA Deciles: List of Schools. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Education. (2003). Reading literacy in New Zealand. Final results from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and the repeat of the 1990-1991 Reading Literacy Study (10-year trends Study) for Year 5 students. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Health, Public Health Group. (1997, September). The health and disability sector’s response to family violence: Background paper. Family violence: Guidelines for providers to develop practice protocols: A discussion document. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Justice. (2004). Restorative Justice in New Zealand. Best practice. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.

Ministry of Social Development. (2002). New Zealand’s agenda for children. Wellington: Author.

Ministry of Youth Development. (2004, Sept). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (2004) Five-year work programme 2004-2008. Wellington: Ministry of Youth Development. Retrieved from www.myd.govt.nz.

Montgomery, H., & Woodhead, M. (Eds.). (2003). Understanding childhood: An interdisciplinary approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Morgan, J., & Zedner, L. (1992). Child victims. Crime, impact and criminal justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Mullender, A., Hague, G., Iman, U. F., Kelly, L., Malos, E., & Regan, L. (2003). ‘Could have helped but they didn’t’. The formal and informal support systems experienced by children living with domestic violence. In C. Hallet, & A. Prout (Eds.), Hearing the voices of children. Social policy for a new century (pp. 139-157). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Nairn, K., & Smith, A. B. (2002). Secondary school students’ experiences of bullying at school – and their suggestions for dealing with it, Childrenz Issues, 6(1), 16-22.

Nairn, K., & Smith, A. B. (2003). Taking students seriously: Their rights to be safe at school. Gender and Education, 15(2), 133-149.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of American Medical Association, 285(16), 2094-2100.

Nash, R., & Harker, R. (1998). Making progress. Adding value in secondary education. Palmerston North: ERDC Press, Massey University.

Nesbitt, E. (2000). Researching 8 to 13-year-olds’ perspectives on their experience of religion. In A. Lewis, & G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching children’s perspectives (pp. 135-149). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Newman, L. S. (2001, September). Coping and defense: No clear distinction. American Psychologist, 56(9), 760-761.

New Zealand Care of Children Act 2004.

New Zealand Children and Young Persons Amendment Act 1994.

New Zealand Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 2004.

New Zealand Children and Young Persons Service. (1996). Breaking the cycle. Interagency protocols for child abuse management. Wellington: Author.

New Zealand Civil Union Act 2004.

New Zealand Crimes Act 1961.

New Zealand Domestic Violence Act 1995.

New Zealand Family Planning Association. (2006, Nov). Relationship Matters, 1(2), 1-2.

New Zealand Government. (1995). Government Statement of Policy on Family Violence. Wellington: Author.

New Zealand Privacy Act 1993.

New Zealand Reproductive Technology Act 2004.

New Zealand Status of Children Amendment Act 2004.

Nunnelley, J. C., & Fields, T. (1999). Anger, dismay, guilt, anxiety: The realities and roles of reporting child abuse. Young Children, 54(5), 74-80.

Oakley, A. (1994). Women and children first and last: Parallels and differences between children’s and women’s studies. In B. Mayall (Ed.), Children’s childhoods observed and experienced (pp. 13-32). London: The Falmer Press.

O’Reilly, L. (1996). Understanding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989: Making it real for children and young persons. In N. J. Taylor, & A. B. Smith (Eds.), Investing in children. Primary prevention strategies (pp. 13-26). Dunedin: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago.

Office of Child Abuse and Neglect. (2000). What is child maltreatment? Retrieved from http://www.mhsqic.org/DSQIC/OCAN/ts/ho1_5.htm

Office of the Commissioner for Children (n.d.). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Wellington: Author.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P. K Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, & P. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective (pp. 7-27). London: Routledge.

Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school. The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 3-20). New York: The Guilford Press.

Orpinas, P., Horne, A. M., & Staniszewski, D. (2003). School bullying: Changing the culture by changing the school. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 384-400.

Osborne, J. W. (2004). Identification with academics and violence in schools. In E. R. Gerler, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of school violence (pp. 41-74). New York: The Haworth Reference Press.

Osher, D., Kenziora, K. T., VanDenBerg, J., & Dennis, K. (1999). Beyond individual resilience. Reaching Today’s Youth, 3(4), 2-4.

Osher, D., VanAcker, R., Gable, R., Dwyer, K., & Quinn, M. (2004). Warning signs of problems in schools: Ecological perspectives and effective practices for combating school aggression and violence. In M. J. Furlong, G. M. Morrison, R. Skiba, & D. G. Cornell (Eds.), Issues in school violence research (pp. 13-37). New York: The Haworth Press.

Osofsky, J. D. (1995). Children who witness domestic violence: The invisible victims. Social Policy Report, 9, 1-18.

Osofsky, J. D. (1999). The impact of violence on children. Domestic violence and children, 9(3), 33-49.

Osofsky, J. D., Wewers, S., Hann, D. M., & Fick, A. C. (1993). Chronic community violence. In D. Reiss, J. E. Richters, M. Radke-Yarrow, & D. Scharff (Eds.), Children and violence (pp. 36-46). New York: Guilford Press.

Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html

Payne, R. K. (1999). Preventing school violence by creating emotional safety. TX: aha! Process.

Peart, N., & Holdaway, D. (1998). Legal and ethical issues of health research with children. Childrenz Issues, 2(2), 42-46.

Peart, N., Foley, M., & Henaghan, M. (2003). Children as research participants. In J. Dawson, & N. Peart (Eds.), The law of research: A guide (pp. 269-284). Dunedin: University of Otago Press.

Pepler, D., & Slaby, R. (1994). Theoretical and developmental perspectives on youth and violence. In L. D. Eron, J. H Gentry, & P. Schlegal (Eds.), Reason to hope. A psychosocial perspective on violence and youth (pp. 27-58). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Pepler, D., Craig, W., Ziegler, S., & Charach, A. (1993). A school-based anti-bullying intervention: Preliminary evaluation. In D. Tattum (Ed.), Understanding and managing bullying (pp. 76-91). Oxford, UK: Heinemann.

Perry, B. D. (1994). Neurobiological sequelae of childhood trauma: Post-traumatic stress disorders in children. In M. Murberg (Ed.), Catecholamine function in post-traumatic stress disorder. Emerging concepts (pp. 253-276). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Perry, B. D. (1995). Principles of working with traumatized children: Special considerations for parents, caretakers and teachers. CIVITAS Child Trauma Programs: Houston, TX: Baylor College of Medicine.

Perry, B. D. (1996). Neurodevelopmental adaptations to violence: How children survive the intragenerational vortex of violence. In B. D. Perry. Violence and childhood trauma: Understanding and responding to the effects of violence on young children (pp. 1-18). Cleveland, OH: Gund Foundation.

Perry, B. D. (1997). Incubated in terror: Neurodevelopmental factors in the ‘cycle of violence’. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Children in a violent society (pp. 124-149). New York: Guilford Press.

Perry, B. D. (2002). Childhood experience and the expression of genetic potential: What childhood neglect tells us about nature and nurture. Brain and Mind, 3, 79-100.

Perry, B. D. (2004). Understanding traumatized and maltreated children: The core concepts. Houston, TX: Child Trauma Academy.

Perry, B. D. (2005, March). New directions in interventions with maltreated and traumatised children and adolescents. Paper presented at the Brain Development Seminar, Wellington, New Zealand.

Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V. E., & Egan, S. K. (2001). Determinants of chronic victimization by peers. In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school. The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 73-104). New York: The Guilford Press.

Prout, A. (2001). Preface. In L. Alanen, & B. Mayall (Eds.), Conceptualizing child-adult relations (pp. xi-xii). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Prout, A. (2003). Participation, policy and childhood. In C. Hallett, & A. Prout (Eds.), Hearing the voices of children. Social policy for a new century (pp. 11-25). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Pryor, J., & Woodward, L. (1996). Families and parenting. In P. A. Silva & W. R. Stanton (Eds.), Child to Adult. The Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study (pp. 247-258). Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Purkey, S. C. & Smith, M. S. (1982, December). Too soon to cheer? Synthesis of research on effective schools. Educational Leadership, 40, 64-69.

Putman, F. W., & Trickett, P. K. (1993). Child sexual abuse: A model of chronic trauma. In D. Reiss, J. E. Richters, M. Radke-Yarrow, & D. Scharff (Eds.), Children and violence (pp. 82-96). New York: Guilford Press.

Qvortrup, J. (1997). A voice for children in statistical and social accounting: A plea for children’s voice to be heard. In A. James, & A. Prout (Eds.), Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood (2^nd ed.) (pp. 85-106). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Qvortrup, J. (2000). Macroanalysis of Childhood. In P. Christensen, & A. James (Eds.), Research with Children. Perspectives and Practices (pp. 77-97). London: Falmer Press.

Rappoport, A. L. (2005). Restorative practices. Retrieved from http://www.metrokids.com/january05/restorative0105.html

Rauskauskas, J. L. (2005). Role of attribution style and coping strategy selection in the relationship between peer victimization and outcomes among economically disadvantaged students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis.

Raskauskas, J., Carroll-Lind, J., & Kearney, A. (2005). Text-bullying: Is it related to relational or verbal aggression? SET: Research Information for Teachers 3, 7-10.

Raskauskas, J., Carroll-Lind, J., & Kearney, A. (in press). Multiple peer victimization in New Zealand: Relations to bullying behaviour. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 41(2).

Reiss, D., Richters, J. E., Radke-Yarrow, M., & Scharff, D. (Eds.). (1993). Children and violence. New York: Guilford Press.

Richardson, P., & Schwartz, I. (1998). Making friends in preschool: Friendship patterns of young children with disabilities. In L. H. Meyer, H-S. Park, M. Grenot-Scheyer, I. S. Schwartz, & B. Harry (Eds.), Making friends: The influences of culture and development (pp. 65-80). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P. (1993). The NIMH Community Violence Project: 1. Children as victims of and witnesses to violence. In D. Reiss, J. E. Richters, M. Radke-Yarrow, & D. Scharff (Eds.), Children and violence (pp. 7-21). New York: Guilford Press.

Rigby, K. (1999). Gender and bullying in school. In P. T. Slee, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Children’s peer relations (pp. 47-59). London: Routledge.

Ristock, J. L. (1995). The impact of violence on mental health: A guide to the literature. Ottawa, Ontario: Health Canada.

Ritchie, J., & Ritchie, J. (1981). Spare the rod. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Ritchie, J., & Ritchie, J. (1990). Violence in New Zealand. Wellington: Allen & Unwin.

Ritchie, J., & Ritchie, J. (1993). Violence in New Zealand. Wellington: Huia.

Ritchie, J., & Ritchie, J. (2002). The rainbow path to overcoming violence. In J. Ritchie, J. Ritchie, K. Birch, R. McClay, B. Easton, D. Wilson, A. Powell, T. Cardigan, Weave, C. Marshall, J. Consedine, & J. Roberts (Eds.), Overcoming violence in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 8-17). Wellington: Philip Garside.

Rodkin, P. C. (2001). Peer ecologies of aggression and bullying. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools. A social-ecological perspective on prevention and violence (pp. 87-106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rodkin, P. C., & Hodges, E. V. (2003). Bullies and victims in the peer ecology: Four questions for psychologists and school professionals. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 384-400.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Runyan, D. K. (2000). The ethical, legal, and methodological implications of directly asking children about abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(7), 675-681.

Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Educational Psychiatry, 147, 598-611.

Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In J. E. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 181-284). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Somerset: Open Books.

Sattler, J. M. (1998). Clinical and forensic interviewing of children and families. San Diego: Author.

Sautter, R. C. (1995, January). Standing up to violence. Kappan special report. Phi Delta Kappan, 384-392.

Simpson, B. (1989). Giving children a voice in divorce: The role of family conciliation. Children and Society, 3(3), 261-274.

Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (1993). Empathy and social relationships in adolescents with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 189-204.

Schwarz, E. D., & Perry, B. D. (1994). The post-traumatic response in children and adolescents. The Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 17(2), 311-326.

Schwartz, D., & Hopmeyer Gorman, A. (2003). Community violence exposure and children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 163-173.

Shapiro, J. P., Friedman, D., Meyer, M., & Loftus, M. (1996, November 11). Invincible kids. U.S. News and World Report, 62-71.

Shepherd, P. (1996). Family violence and children: How schools can respond. Set: Research Information for Teachers, 1(5), 1-4.

Shore, R. (1997). Rethinking the brain: New insights into early development. New York: Families and Work Institute.

Simcock, A. (2000). Safe not sorry: A handbook for selecting suitable people to work with children. Hamilton: The Institute for Child Protection Studies.

Skiba, R., Simmons, A. B., Peterson, R., McKelvey, J., Forde, S., & Gallini, S. (2004). Beyond guns, drugs and gangs: The structure of student perceptions of school safety. In G. Morrison, M. Furlong, R. Skiba, & D. Cornell (Eds.), Issues in school violence research (pp. 149-171). New York: The Haworth Press.

Slee. P. T. (2003). Violence in schools: An Australian commentary. In P. K. Smith (Ed.), Violence in schools. The response in Europe (pp. 301-316). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Smith, A. (1996). Incorporating children’s perspectives into research in New Zealand. Unpublished manuscript. Dunedin: University of Otago.

Smith, A. B. (2001). Promoting diversity rather than uniformity: Theoretical and practical perspectives. In Children’s Issues Centre (Ed.), 2001 collected articles. Dunedin: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago.

Smith, A. B., Gollop, M. M., Taylor, N. J., & Marshall, K. (2004). The Discipline and guidance of children: A summary of research. Dunedin: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.

Smith, A. B., Gollop, M. M., Taylor, N. J., & Marshall, K. (Eds.). (2005). The discipline and guidance of children: Messages from research. A review of research literature for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner by the Children’s Issues Centre. Dunedin and Wellington, NZ: Children’s Issues Centre and Office of the Children’s Commissioner.

Smith, A. B., & Taylor, N. J. (2000). The sociocultural context of childhood: Balancing dependency and agency. In A. B. Smith, N. J. Taylor, & M. M. Gollop (Eds.), Children’s voices. Research, policy and practice (pp. 1-17). Auckland: Pearson Education New Zealand.

Smith, A. B., Taylor, N. J., & Gollop, M. M. (Eds.). (2000). Children’s voices. Research, policy and practice. Auckland: Pearson Education New Zealand.

Smith, P. K. (1994, Winter). Bullying: From crisis management to prevention. Children UK, 3.

Smith, P. K. (Ed.). (2003). Violence in schools. The response in Europe. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Smith, P. K., & Ahmad, Y. (1990). The playground jungle: Bullies, victims and intervention strategies. Set, 1(6), 1-4.

Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., & Slee, P. (Eds.). (1999). The nature of bullying: A cross-national perspective. London: Routledge.

Sobsey, D. (1994). Violence and abuse in the lives of people with disabilities. The end of silent acceptance? Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victims Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268.

Stone, D. (1998). Social Cognitive Theory. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida. Retrieved from http://hsc.usf.edu/~kmbrown/Social_Cognitive_Theory_.htm

Straus, M. (1994). Beating the devil out of them. New York: Lexington Books, Macmillan.

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 465-479.

Sullivan, K. (2000a). Bullying in schools. Issues for New Zealand teachers. SET, 2,
39-43.

Sullivan, K. (2000b). The anti-bullying handbook. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, K., Cleary, M., & Sullivan, G. (2004). Bullying in secondary schools. What it looks like and how to manage it. London: Paul Chapman.

Swearer, S. M., & Doll, B. (2001). Bullying in schools: An ecological framework. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(2-3), 7-23.

Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D.L. (2004). Introduction: A social-ecological framework of bullying among youth. In D. L. Espelage, & S. S. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American Schools. A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 1-12). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Swearer, S. M., Grills, A. E., Haye, K. M., & Cary, P. T. (2004). Internalizing problems in students involved in bullying and victimization: Implications for intervention. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools. A social-ecological perspective on prevention and violence (pp. 63-83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tapp, P., & Henaghan, M. (2000). Family law: Conceptions of childhood and children’s voices – the implications of article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In A. B. Smith, N. J. Taylor, & M. M. Gollop (Eds.), Children’s voices. Research, policy and practice (pp. 91-109). Auckland: Pearson Education New Zealand.

Taylor, N. J., & Smith, A. B. (2000). The way forward: Incorporating children’s perspectives in research, policy and practice. In A. B. Smith, N. J. Taylor, M. M. Gollop (Eds.), Children’s voices: Research, policy and practice (pp. 202-207). Auckland: Pearson Education New Zealand.

Terr, L. (1991). Childhood traumas: An outline and overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148(1), 10-20.

UNICEF (2003, Sept). UNICEF: A league table of child maltreatment deaths in rich nations. Innocenti Report Card, No. 5. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre.

UNICEF (2005). UNICEF: Children living below national poverty lines. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre. Retrieved from www.unicef.icdc.org

United Nations (1989). The United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Geneva: Author. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/crc/fulltext.htm

United States National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse (2003). The formative years: Pathways to substance abuse among girls and young women ages 8-22. New York: Columbia University.

Varnham, S. (2004). Seeing things differently: Restorative justice and school discipline. Retrieved from http--www.sacl.vuw.ac.nz-fca-sacl-files-Seeingthingsdifferently.pdf

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walker, M. (1993). Surviving secrets. The experience of abuse for the child, the adult and the helper. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Wallach, L. B. (1993, May). Helping children cope with violence. Young Children. NAEYC.

Wallach, L. B. (1994). Violence and young children’s development. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from http://ericeece.org/pubs/digests/1994/wallac94.html

Watson, P. D., Denny, S. J., Adair, V., Ameratunga, S. N., Clark, T. C., Crengle, S. M., Dixon, R. S., Fa’asisila, M., Merry, S. N., Robinson, E. M., & Sporle. A. A (2003). A health profile of New Zealand youth who attend secondary school. New Zealand Medical Journal, 116(1171). Retrieved from http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/116-1171/380/

Weis, L., Marusza, J., & Fine, M. (1998). Out of the cupboard: Kids, domestic violence, and schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 19(1), 53-73.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.

Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993, Spring). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35 (1), 3-25.

WHO Global Consultation on Violence and Health (1996). Violence: a public health priority. Geneva: World health organization (document WHO/EHA/SPL.POA. 2).

Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P. G. (2003). The effects of children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6(3), 171-187.

Wood, B. (1998). Physical punishment of children: Legal and ethical issues. Childrenz Issues, 2(2), 53-55.

World Health Organisation (2002). World Report on Violence and Health. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/violence-injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/

Yegidis, B. L. (1992). Clinical care update. Family violence: Contemporary research findings and practice issues. Community Mental Health Journal, 28(6), 519-529.

Yoneyama, S., & Rigby, K. (2006). Bully/victim students and classroom climate. Youth Studies Australia, 25(3), 34-41.

Zwi, A. B. & Rifkin, S. (1995). Violence involving children. British Medical Journal, 311(25), 1384.
APPENDICES